(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Final environmental statement :Planet Townsite"

BLM LIBRARY 



88065603 




1 iff p r 



m 



©ID^SX 

( FINAL ) ^- A/Q 

TOECDEH 




- ..... ■ 



MM. 










Prepared by 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 




Bureau of Land Management 

Library 

4)enver Service Center, 






A I 



P :-..;.: ', 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR \9?7 



FINAL 
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 



PLANET TOWNS ITE 



Prepared by 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 



!([)■ 



ftS 77-?-. 




DIRECTOR 



Cover: The oblique aerial photo on the cover shows the area under 
consideration in this document. The photo was taken in 
September 1972, looking north. The farmland in the lower 
right portion of the photo is the present Planet Ranch. 
The Bill Williams River flows from right to left. 
Castaneda Wash can be seen near the center. The lower 
portion of the wash is also being farmed. 



Bureau of Land Management 

Library 

Denver Service Center; 



SUMMARY 

( ) Draft (x) Final Environmental Statement 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

1. Type of action ; (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 

2. Brief Description of Action : 

The applicant proposes to exchange 1,280 acres of private land 
for 1,080 acres of public land in Mohave and Yuma Counties, 
Arizona, for the development of a private recreation/retirement 
community. The proposed development may house 500 families on 
a total area of approximately 8,660 acres. 

3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effects ; 

The proposed new town development of 8,660 acres will have a 
probable impact on the following: (1) Possible minor change in 
climate, (2) partial change of vegetation, (3) soil, (4) elimination 
of livestock grazing, removal of wildlife, (6) recreation, 
(7) water, (8) air, (9) visual, (10) economic, (11) increase in 
the potential for man-caused accidents. 

The impacts considered to be adverse concern vegetation, soil, water, 
air, wildlife, grazing, visual, and noise. 

4. Alternatives Considered : 

a. No action 

b. Modify exchanges 

c. Public acquisition of private and State lands 

d. Direct sale of land 

5. Comments have been requested/received from the following : 
See Appendices E and F. 

6. Date Statement Made Available to CEQ and the Public : 
Draft Statement: March 29, 1973 

Final Statement: 3 U H C- J ' 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL 



Introduction 
Climate 



Economic Conditions 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Hazards 



Introduction 
Climate 
Vegetation 
Soils 



Page 



Purpose of the Action i 

Description of the Action 1 



II. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 



3 

4 

5 
Vegetation _ 

Soils 5 

Topography 6 

Geology 7 

Water ,q 

A XL 1 r\ 

Aesthetics .. 

Noise .. , 

Land Use *± 

Livestock Grazing 

Wildlife 14 

Watershed «> 

Recreation .^ 

Minerals n - 



26 



III. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 27 



27 

27 

27 

28 

28 
Topography 28 

Geology 28 

Water 

Air 

Aesthetics 

Noise 

Land Use 

Livestock Grazing 

Wildlife 

Watershed 

Recreation 

Minerals 

Archeology 



29 
29 

29 
30 
30 

30 
32 
33 
34 
34 



—■—ill mm 



Table of Contents (continued) 



Land Use 

Economic Impacts 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Hazards 

Unknown or Partially Understood Impacts 



Page 

34 
35 
35 
36 



IV. MITIGATING MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION 36 



Vegetation 
Soils 

Topography 
Water 
Air 

Aesthetics 
Land Use 

Wildlife 
Recreation 
Minerals 
Archeology 



37 
37 
37 
37 

37 
37 
38 

39 
39 
39 
39 



V. ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD 
THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 

Vegetation 

Soil 

Water 

Air 

Aesthetics 

Noise 

Wildlife 

Recreation 

Archeology 



40 

40 
40 
40 
41 
41 
41 
41 
42 
42 



VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF 
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE OF LONG-TERM 
PRODUCTIVITY 



42 



VIII. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT 
OF RESOURCES 



43 



Vegetation 
Aesthetics 

Land Use 



43 
43 

43 



XI 



Table of Contents (continued) 



Recreation 



Pa g e 



Wildlife 43 

44 



Archeology 44 



VIII. ALTERNATIVES 44 

No Action 44 

Modify Exchanges 45 

Public Acquisition of Private and State Lands 45 

Direct Sale of Land 46 



IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH OTHERS 46 

MAPS 

MAP 1 General Location la 

MAP 2 Present Land Status lb 

MAP 3 Proposed 500 Homesite Development lc 

MAP 4 Havasu National Wildlife Refuge 5a 



xix 



APPENDICES 



Appendix Title p ag e 



A Lists of Plants, Mammals, Birds, Reptiles 
and Amphibians normally associated with 
the region 49 

B Notice of Proposed Classification 

(FR Vol. 37 No. 82 - April 27, 1972) 56 

C Waters of the Bill Williams River (letter 
from Riley, Carlock & Ralston by Frank C. 
Brophy, Jr.) 57 

D List of References 59 

E List of Agencies, Associations and Individuals 
from whom comments on Draft Statement were 
requested or invited 62 

F Index and Copies of Responses Received on 

Draft Statement and BLM Comments thereon 68 

G Large Scale Remote Subdivisions in Arizona 
(A Preliminary Draft Prepared by Arizona 
Department of Economic Planning and Development) 280 

H Preliminary Report of Archeological Investiga- 
tion by Prescott College 290 

I Summary of Land Transactions, 1967 to date 305 

J Discussion of Water Resources (Arizona 

Water Commission) 306 

K Engineering Bulletin No. 12, The Septic Tank - 
A Method of Sewage Disposal for Private or 
Public Buildings, Environmental Health Services, 
Arizona State Department of Health 309 



iv 



I. Description of the Proposal 



Purpose of the Action 

The purpose of this statement is to analyze the probable 
environmental impacts of a proposed land exchange with Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Co. as required under the National Environmental Policy- 
Act (P.L. 91-190). The lands involved are in Mohave and Yuma Counties, 
Arizona (maps 1 and 2) . No environmental impacts will result directly 
from the land exchange, but changes in land use, made possible by 
the exchange, could bring about significant changes in the natural 
environmental, human activities, and living patterns. 

To accomplish the exchange, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is 
required to reclassify the Federal land for disposal. If the decision 
to classify some or all of the public land for exchange is made based 
on this environmental statement and other considerations, a proposed 
classification will be issued pursuant to 43 CFR, Part 2450, and BLM 
will invite interested parties to comment on the proposed classification. 

Description of the Action 

After the Planet Townsite Draft Environmental Statement was 
issued on March 29, 1973 and public comments were received, Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Co. reported to BLM that it had revised its original 
plans and proposed to develop a community of 500 homesites (instead of 
7,000) on an area of 8,660 acres (instead of 11,980 acres). This 
change in plans would reduce its request for classification of national 
resource lands (NRL) to 1,080 acres (instead of approximately 9,646 acres in 
its original request) . This final environmental statement will analyze 
the reduced homesite development . 

The original exchange proposal included 1,080 acres of private lands 
located adjacent to the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge which could 
be exchanged for inclusion in the refuge area. The present proposal 
eliminates any exchange to the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Parker, 
Arizona owns about 10,000 acres of land along the Bill Williams River, 
Intermingled with these lands are State and NRL administered by BLM (map 2) . 
The proposed development on these lands would be for homesite development. 

The environmental analysis in this statement is based on the develop- 
ment of a low density community with the following features (map 3) . 

1. All urban development would be located on about 8,500 acres of 
benchlands along the Bill Williams River and east of Mohave Wash. 
Residential development would not be allowed in the washes or floodplain. 
The development would consist of low density, single family dwellings 
on 5-acre sites. The Bill Williams River floodplain and the wash bottoms 
would be preserved as greenbelt and open spaces for ranch and farm 



California an 



.;"®AI>PIE VAUEY 
;®HESPERIA 





FLAGSTAFF 



vLAKE HAVASCKCITY 
Lake Havusu t\>. '"*""• • PRESCOTT 

•PLANET RANCH 

:¥ JfV' barker ":-, 



■I-* DESERT 

•:-f>. CEWitR 



$> 



SAITON OTY 



x-x-x-x-x-x-Xv. a centro 
California *::x:-x 



MEXICO 




■I*. WCKENBURG 



^ PHOENIX 



TUCSON 



o 
m 

2 

m 
> 



o 
o 
> 



> 




PUBLIC LAND SELECTED 
= OBLft !LANb " 



11 STATE. LAND 
155^ PRIVATE LAND 



m 

m 



> 
z 



> 

l>0 



MAP 3 



PROPOSED 500 HOMESITE DEVELOPMENT 




A ■ J\rF' 3 

<**K-$ #; ft £ ^ 



Piaa&t Ranch 



DEVELOPER ARIZONA RANCH AMD METALS COMPANY 
ENGNEER/ LAND PLANNER TRICO INTERNATIONAL, INC. 



LEGEND 



t nici-Tii tat count 

• ,.-<■« n ition* »*c L r«» , oil -(*> 




-trr— ,-.;.;■ ■■... ... ' : ;,T >iT-; 



activities of the company. No chemical eradication of phreatophytes 
is contemplated. Existing north-south drainages would be utilized 
for flood control. One wash would be rerouted into Castaneda Wash. 
Minimum land clearing is planned. Deed restrictions would be used 
by Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. to control architectural design of 
private developments and prevent further subdivision of lots. 

2. An equestrian center, lodge and 9-hole golf course are planned. 
Irrigated pasture in the river floodplains would be increased from 
approximately 1 5 100 acres to 2,000 acres. 

3. Arizona Public Service would supply electricity from the 69 kv 
line at Mineral Wash which currently services the Planet Ranch. 
This line is adequate for the development planned. 

All service lines in the development would be placed underground. 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. plans an all-electric community, but if 
natural gas is needed and available, it could be piped from an ex- 
isting gas line approximately 4 miles east of the townsite. The gas 
line would parallel an existing power line eliminating the need for 
new access or land scarring. 

4. The existing access road up the Bill Williams River and the 
secondary and primary roads in the townsite would be paved. No 
raod improvement, either north or south of the townsite, is planned. 
All roads within the townsite would be deeded as public rights-of-way, 
No use of the existing dirt landing strip north of the Planet Ranch 

is planned (map 2) . 

5. Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. plais to continue its present 
livestock operation on the Planet Raich and associated Federal 
range allotment. An 100-foot wide livestock right-of-way would be 
provided on the east side of Castaneda Wash. 

6. Land owners would develop individual septic tank systems. A 
sanitary landfill for solid wastes is planned north of the townsite. 
The site has not been identified. 

7. Domestic water would be pumped from wells in the Bill Williams 
River floodplain to a series of low profile storage tanks located at 
the northern limits of the development. 

8. Sand and gravel for construction would be obtained from town- 
site lands . 

Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. plans to sell the homesites through 
interstate sales. Such sales would be made in accordance with 
Public Law 90-448 (Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act). 



If the contemplated exchange is consumated the patents (deeds) 
issued by BLM would not contain any covenants governing the use 
to which the lands would be put or the terms and conditions of 
such use. Nothing in the patents would require the company to 
develop the lands according to its plans nor would they prevent 
the company from selling all or part of the lands to others . 

If the desired consolidation is to be accomplished by exchange, 
the company would offer to the United States at least an equal 
value of lands that would be suitable for management of Federal 
programs . 

The private lands offered by Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. 
contain 1,280 acres (map 2). These lands are upstream from the 
proposed townsite and encompass approximately 4 miles of the Bill 
Williams River. The prime value of the offered lands to the BLM 
programs would be for the use of wildlife. These lands have potential 
for development and maintenance of riparian habitat for doves , 
waterfowl, small game, deer, and bighorn sheep. Water in the Bill 
Williams River is controlled by the Alamo Dam and is free flowing 
when released from the dam or when storms occur below the dam. 
There are year-round subsurface water flows along the river that 
can be developed. 

Federal acquisition of these offered lands would also consoli- 
date Federal ownership, assuring bighorn sheep access between their 
habitats north and south of the Bill Williams River. 

During preparation of this environmental statement it was 
necessary to determine the likely consequences of the classification 
and transfer of the lands to the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. Many environ- 
mental impacts were not specifically researched, but due to the knowledge, 
expertise and experience of BLM with similar actions on desert land, 
the statement often contains positive statements on various environ- 
mental impacts on the human environment. 



II. Description of the Environment 

Introduction 

This section of the statement discusses the present environmental 
conditions of the proposed townsite and the surrounding area. 



-jJHMSa 



■ if>i- <-*fi.;A^.iv 1 ;. 1 ;,-j i ii 1 



Climate 



The subject lands are located in the southwestern desert 
region which is characterized by extremely hot summers, mild 
temperate winters, low rainfall, low relative humidity, and a long 
growing season The townsite and the impacted area encompass what 
is termed the low desert and the medium-high desert, The low desert 
is found primarily along the Colorado River, extending 10 to 15 
mles on either side at elevations of 450 feet to 1,000 feet above 
sea level. The medium-high desert extends from the 1,000-foot 
elevation to approximately 5,000 feet. The proposed townsite is 
to be located xn the low desert zone. 

h - The ^o deS ! rt *° ne haS mean dail y temperatures in July 
between 106° and 108° F, with highs ranging from 115° to 125° F 

ovTino* f p P r " lfflatel y 10 ° **jb Per year with means temperatures 
oyer xuu 1 . The average low winter temperature is about 37° F 

5 ) davT °L\ 3 - F °l reC ° rd - The aV6rage gr ° Wlng Seas ° n is ^Proximately 
^/U days. Freezing temperatures rarely exceed 10 days per year 

I™ 1112 be , tWeen December 1 and February 15. The medium-high desert 
zone has wider variations in temperature. Summer highs range from 
approximately 115° to 117° F, with approximately 110 days afove 90° F 
Lows average in the high 60s. Winter highs range between 60° and ' 
/0 F, with lows averaging 28° to 32° F. There are usually 80 to 
85 days with freezing temperatures during December, January, and 
February with occasional lows of 0° F recorded throughout the zone. 
The growing season is approximatley 240 days. 

«« Tfc *A W * l *P rainfall is about 6 inches per year in the townsite 
area. Approximately 60 percent of this precipitation results from 
winter storms, and the remainder from summer cloudbursts. The 
mean annual evaporation is approximately 80 inches. The results 
ot this combination are reflected by vegetation that can survive 
in soxls that are extremely dry for long periods of time. 

Unequal heating and cooling of the ground surface generates 
a mountain-valley wind system which acts in conjunction with 
wind channeled through mountain passes and the river valley. 

Vertical temperature profile decreases 4° to 5° F for each 
thousand foot increase in elevation. In summer there is a surface- 
based radxation inversion in the early morning hours which is 
related to the lighter winds and clear skies . The winter temperature 
profile does not show this early morning inversion due to strong 
northerly winds aloft. strong 

Relative humidity varies from 10 percent to 40 percent in 
the summer and 25 percent to 50 percent during the winter. The 
amount of water vapor normally changes very little throughout the 
day because the oscillation of relative humidity is largely due to 
change in temperature. geiy aue t0 



Adverse climate elements include the long hot summers from 
May through the first part of October and the low, undependable 
precipitation that is sometimes accompanied by intense storm 
flash flooding and high winds. These adverse factors are partially 
offset by the long growing season and by the mild temperatures 
during the winter months. 

Vegetation 

Plant species associated with the Planet Townsite are typical 
of those species found in the Sonoran Desert. The Lower Colorado 
Valley vegetative subdivision of the Sonoran Desert occurs primarily 
along the lower part of the Bill Williams and Colorado Rivers. 
Riparian vegetation along the Bill Williams River near the proposed 
townsite includes arrow weed, cattail, and bullrush, as well as 
luxuriant stands of Fremont cottonwood, salt cedar, Athel tamarisk, 
and willow. (A more complete list of vegetation is found in appendix A.) 

The plant species found on the townsite are representative of 
the Arizona Upland vegetative subdivision. Plant species include 
creosote bush, palo verde, mesquite, ironwood, ocotillo, saguaro, 
teddy bear cholla, and smoke tree. 

There are few perennial grasses or forbs on the area, but 
extra winter or summer precipitation can result in abundant 
ephemeral vegetation. Following these periods of precipitation 
annuals such as filaree, Indian wheat, six weeks grama, three awn, 
six weeks needle grama, and six weeks three awn will fill much of 
the normally barren interspaces between the perennial shrubs 
and trees. 

Soils 

The soils are well drained, moderately to slowly permeable, 
very deep, fine textured sandy loam with a surface cover of desert 
pavement in some areas. The soils are relatively young and show 
very little horizon development. There is very little evidence 
of active wind or water erosion on the numerous flat ridges in the 
area. The erosion potential is moderate. 

Topography 

The proposed Planet Townsite lies on a gently sloping alluvial 
fan, draining south-southwestward to the Bill Williams River which 
forms the townsite 's southern boundary (topography — map 4). 

Six large washes and several dozen smaller washes are incised 
into the surface of the fan, resulting in a series of alternating 
flattop ridges separated by parallel dry washes. The largest of 
these, Castaneda Wash, is nearly one-quarter mile wide and has cut 



R. 17 W. 



R. 16 W. 



R. 15 W. 



l, . ' « ' i ll \ 



/^* 



T II 



X 



T 



T. 10 







Scale 3/4" = I Mile 



as much as 80 feet into the alluvium. Most washes, however, are 
much smaller and correspondingly shallower. 

Elevations of the proposed townsite vary from approximately 
1,400 feet along the north, to below 600 feet along the Bill 
Williams River. There is an average gradient of approximately 
2 percent. The only steep slopes encountered on the lands are 
those forming the banks of the washes . 

Other lands in the proposed exchange area lie between 700 
and 800 foot elevations on the south bank of the Bill Williams 
floodplain. This is a rough badlands area where a series of dry 
canyons spill out onto the floodplain along the main river channel. 

The terrain surrounding the townsite is generally much higher 
and rougher. On the west are the Lower Chemehuevis and Bill 
Williams Mountains, to the south the Buckskin Mountains, and 
on the east the Black Mesa and the Rawhide Mountains. To the 
north the fan continues for a few miles, becoming increasingly 
rougher, until it blends into the foothills of the Mohave and 
McCracken Mountains. 

Geology 

Although various bedrock units are exposed nearby, the entire 
surface and upper subsurface portions of the townsite lands 
are composed of poorly sorted alluvium of Quaternary-Tertiary age. 

This sedimentary material has been deposited as an alluvial 
fan by erosion from the surrounding mountains. The result is 
a thick blanket of silt, sand, and gravel-sized material obscuring 
all rock types and possible mineralization below. The thickness 
of this material could range from a few hundred feet to over 1,000 
feet. No well log information is available. Surface drainages 
have cut channels at least 80 feet in depth across the fan material, 
yet none have gone deep enough to expose bedrock. 

Various older geologic formations seen on adjacent lands are 
presumed to underlie the alluvial fan. Included are Precambrain 
gneiss and a Paleozoic complex made up of thin beds of limestone 
and shale with amphibolite, quartzite, hornfels and quartz- 
sericite schist. 

Tertiary age volcanic rocks may also be found underlying the 
fan. Basalts, with associated tuffs and agglomerate, occur in the 
area, specifically in the vicinity of Black Mesa just east of the 
subject lands. 



Structural information is scanty. Faults separate the mountainous 
areas where older geologic units are exposed from the basin areas, 
where transported alluvium covers everything. The majority of these 
are probably normal faults, though reports of thrust faults in 
adjacent areas are found in the literature. None are recently active. 
The area has not been a center of historical seismic activity. 

Water 

During 1962 the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. had a water 
investigation made by Samuel F. Turner and Associates. Much of 
the following information is taken from Turner r s report which was 
updated by letter, dated October 13, 1971. 

There are five sources of groundwater in Planet Valley: 

1. Recharge from flood flows of the Bill Williams River. 

2. Underflow from the Bill Williams River. 

3. Underflow from the north and south. 

4. Recharge back to groundwater reservoir from irrigation use. 

5. Recharge from precipitation on the valley. 

Turner estimates that a minimum of 23,000 acre-feet (acre-ft) 
of groundwater could be pumped annually without exceeding the annual 
groundwater recharge. This amount is adequate to furnish water 
for 500 families (1 acre-ft per family) and 2,000 acres of irrigated 
crops (6 acre-ft per acre) . 

The wells are from 50 feet to 110 feet deep. Water is 
expected to be of satisfactory quality with total dissolved solids 
(TDS) of 271 to 369, fluoride content of 1.1 parts to 1.2 parts 
per million (p/m) , and a boron content of 0.5 parts per million. 

Over a 26-year period the Bill Williams River flow has averaged 
62,330 acre-feet per year. The river runs into the Colorado River 
at Lake Havasu just above Parker Dam. Water from the Bill Williams 
River is not part of the Colorado River adjudicated waters (appendix C) 
The Bill Williams River was erratic in flow and flash floods were 
common. The Alamo Dam, built in 1968 and operated by the Corps of 
Engineers as a flood control structure, is located approximately 
20 miles east of the proposed townsite. The dam has reduced the 
danger of flooding by providing a more even recharge to the underflow 
of the Bill Williams River. 



-'-appendix D, list of references, item 2 



;■;:: .■ w ■ : :> 



Surface flow normally is not steady in Planet Ranch Valley 
east of the north-south township line separating Rs . 16 and 17 W. 
During normal years a sustained surface flow occurs for at least 
part of the year downstream from the narrows which is located 
one-quarter mile below the township line. The surface flow varies 
both by the time of year and location, but is probably 4,000 to 
7,000 acre-feet per annum in the middle and lower ranch area. 

Consumptive uses of waters at the Planet Ranch include domestic 
use, stock watering, evaporation, irrigation, and phreatophyte 
plant use. Water in underground storage would be available for 
use during drought years. In the Planet "Valley, that portion of 
the Bill Williams River and its floodplain within T. 11. N., R. 16 W. 
lying immediately south of the proposed townsite, the depth of recent 
fill averages 86 feet. By lowering the water table 30 feet this 
fill should produce 22,000 acre-feet of water. An additional 
22,000 acre-feet should be available within this same 30-foot 
horizon in the Pleistocene fill to provide a total of 44,000 acre-feet, 
Recent fill in the lower and middle ranch area should provide 
6,300 acre-feet of water from 30 feet of drawdown, making a total 
of 50,300 acre-feet of water storage for drought years (appendix J). 

The climate and vegetation in the desert causes much of the 
rain that falls to end up as runoff or surface flow. The runoff 
figures on the following table are calculated for the maximum 
probable storm for a 100-year period, a 10-year period, and a 
2-year period. 



Rainfall Intensity — Runoff Table 



100-yr. storm period 


drainage area 
breakdown 


runoff 
acres 

153,500 

32,500 

200,000 

386,000 


acre-ft 
total runoff 


rainfall 

8 hrs. = 3.0 in. 
1 hr. = 0.375 in. 
i e = 0.113 in/hr 


Mohave Wash 
Castaneda Wash 
Remainder 
Total 


11,500 

6,200 

15,000 

32,700 



area in acres 



Q = i e A 



10-yr. storm period 

rainfall 

8 hrs. = 1.8 in. 

1 hr. = 0.54 in. 

i„ = 0.0675 in/hr 



Mohave Wash 
Castaneda Wash 
Remainder 
Total 



6,900 

3,700 

9,000 

19,600 



^jjMSUMBBBKBBSBBSISSSBB 



'-. T" : ..'- ... . '.'.MJiiiBJiiimm 



2-yr. storm period 
rainfall 

8 hrs. = 1.1 in. Mohave Wash 4,200 

1 hr. = 0.1375 in. Castaneda Wash 2,300 

i e = 0.0412 in/hr Remainder 5,500 

Total 12,000 



Alamo Dam controls all but 726 square miles of the Bill 
Williams River watershed; 77 percent of the water from this 
uncontrolled area enters Planet Talley from the north. 

During 1971 the Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, 
conducted a flood hazard evaluation of the Arizona Ranch and 
Metals Company's Planet Ranch. Estimates of peak flood discharges 
are listed below. 



Peak Discharge Table 

concentration area peak discharges :cfs 

point and location (sq mi) SPF** 100 yr. 50 yr. 

1. Bill Williams River at 726* 120,000 52,000 29,000 
downstream limit of 

townsite 

2. Bill Williams River at 233* 110,000 46,000 26,000 
upstream limit of 

townsite 

3. Mohave Wash at confluence 268 75,000 32,000 18,000 
with Bill Williams River 

4. Castaneda Wash at con- 93 45,000 22,000 16,000 
fluence with Bill 

Williams River 



The Corps of Engineers stated that a potential exists for 
serious flood damage to life and property within the floodplains 
of the Bill Williams River and tributary washes. However, the 
proposed plan does not contemplate any structures on the floodplains. 



*excludes tributary area upstream of Alamo Dam 
**standard project flood — (maximum flood that could possibly occur) 



Air 

The air quality in and adjacent to Planet Ranch is of 
relatively high quality. The Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has designated this area Class II in which slight deterioration, 
which normally accompanies moderate well-controlled growth is 
considered insignificant. 

The area is usually smog free and generally meets the 
national and state ambient air quality standards. Of the six 
regulated pollutants— sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical 
oxxdants, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter- 
only particulate matter standards are occasionally exceeded. The 
Arizona 24-hour allowable maximum for particulate matter is 100 
micrograms per cubic meter of air, and the national secondary 
standards for the annual geometric mean is 60 micrograms per 
cubic meter. Dust, caused by blowing winds, will exceed the 
standards for short durations during wind storms. The farming 
operation and vehicle use also contribute to the dust. The 
generally poor condition of the roads limits the amount of travel 
and associated dust in the area. 

The present background level of particulate matter in the 
proposed townsite area is estimated to range between 26 and 35 
micrograms per cubic meter of air. 

Aesthetics 

The townsite is relatively uncluttered with visual intrusions. 
One high voltage power line crosses the northern portion of these 
lands from east to west (Bureau of Reclamation, Parker Dam- 
Bagdad Line) . 

The visual qualities of the features surrounding the site are 
exceptional. The Bill Williams Mountains, Aubrey Peaks, and 
Rawhide Mountains offer scenic backdrops to the east, north and 
west. Green irrigated fields in the bottomlands form the scenic 
foreground, and the Buckskin Mountains form the background to the 
south. The Buckskin Mountains in and around the Planet area have 
been disturbed by mining exploration and development, but these 
disturbances do not detract from the overall scene. 

The Bill Williams River Canyon below Planet Ranch is one of 
the most scenic areas in western Arizona. Here the irrigated 
fields and riparian vegetation of the bottomlands break quickly 
into steep canyon walls. Visual pollution occurs here in the form 
of two power lines. The road up the canyon bottom does not 
significantly detract from the visual scene. 



10 



Noise 

Noise pollution is not significant on or adjacent to the 
proposed townsite. Noise is limited to the normal operation of 
ranching, irrigation, and vehicle traffic. A maximum of 25 
vehicles are estimated to use the area per day. Present noise is 
neither disturbing nor distracting. It is doubtful that noise 
levels ever exceed 50 decibels except near operating farm equipment 
and well pumps or during natural weather disturbance phenomena. 

Land Use 

No urban-suburban uses exist on the proposed townsite or 
adjacent lands. The townsite is in a virtually undisturbed 
natural condition except for a high tension power line, service 
road, and a county highway. The residences and farm buildings of 
the Planet Ranch headquarters are located on the bottomlands in 
Section 32. There is also a small ranch house located downstream 
in the NW° of Sec. 35, T. 11 N. , R. 17 W. G&SRM. 

There are some urban influences on this area from Lake Havasu 
City, the Parker Strip, and Parker. As more people use these areas, 
some will also visit the Planet Ranch area on the Bill Williams 
River. Parker and Lake Havasu City have commercial shopping 
facilities within a 1-hour drive from the townsite. 

The commercial transportation system consists of bus facilities 
at Parker and the two 6,500-foot paved landing strips at Lake 
Havasu City. Arizona State Highway 95 connects Parker and Lake 
Havasu City. Yuma County has constructed a graveled road along the 
Bill Williams River up to Mineral Wash, about 4 miles west of the 
townsite. A well-used ranch road connects this road with the 
Mohave County road that begins at the north side of the Bill 
Williams River, traverses the townsite from south to north, and 
joins the Mohave County Yucca- Alamo Dam Road. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has a large transmission line 
(Parker Dam-Bagdad Line) that crosses the townsite. El Paso 
Natural Gas has a large natural gas pipeline 4 miles east of the 
proposed townsite. Presently there are so few human inhabitants 
that solid waste is not a problem and is disposed of in small 
ranch dumps . 

The Four Corners Regional Commission has proposed the construc- 
tion of a highway along the north side of the Bill Williams River 
from Lake Havasu to Alamo Dam and then to Highway 93 near 
Date Creek. This highway would be part of a proposed effort to 
create "a better connection between Central Arizona and the 
Colorado River Zone". The commission was established to provide 



11 



economic assistance to impoverished Indians of Arizona, New 
Mexico, Colorado, and Utah. A preliminary plan for major road 
construction was prepared in 1969. Highway construction between 
the Planet Townsite and Lake Havasu consequently may be more 
dependent upon acceptance of the Commission's plan than upon the 
applicant's proposal. 



Livestock Grazin 



£ 



All public lands included in and surrounding the proposed 
townsite are presently open to livestock and are alloted to the 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. The average grazing capacity of the 
public lands is approximately two cattle yearlong per section, 
amounting to 18 animal unit month of feed (AUMs) on the one 
and one half sections involved in the proposed exchange. However, 
droughts sometimes limit annual forage production below the 
average grazing capacity. Most grazing occurs in the washes. 

Wildlife 

The general desert region within the watershed of the Bill 
Williams River contains important wildlife values. The habitat 
ranges from river delta lands to barren rugged mountains. 
Species lists have been compiled to identify amphibians, reptiles, 
mammals, and birds normally associated with the region (appendix A). 
Wildlife population data are limited or nonexistent for most of 
the area. Riparian plant species are profuse and serve as a 
natural habitat for various wildlife forms near Planet Townsite 
along the Bill Williams River. 

Four species of mammals are considered to be of special 

significance to the region. These are the desert bighorn sheep, 

desert mule deer, antelope, and feral burro. Each of these may 

be expected to frequent the townsite but cannot be considered 
permanent inhabitants. 

Use by these species is probably highest during years of 
above normal precipitation and at times when forage is so abundant 
that these wildlife species stay in the area longer than usual. 
Bighorn sheep rams may cross the area in search of ewes during the 
mating season. Increased use by wildlife may also occur in the 
desert washes when succulent vegetation is more profuse following 
seasonal runoff. Each wash serves as a natural route from the 
river bottoms to higher elevations to the north for deer and bighorn 
sheep . 



12 






A Mexican subspecies of the American antelope (Mexican pronghorn) 
occurs within the area. This antelope ranges from the vicinity of 
Lake Havasu City south and east to the Rawhide Mountains-Aubrey 
Peaks area. Observations of this species reveal intermittent use 
of the alluvial fans and sandy slopes, washes, and rocky hills of 
the region. 

Other mammalian species that occur on the townsite or adjacent 
river lands include Yuma lion, coyote, badger, gray fox, bobcat, 
beaver, striped skunk, spotted skunk, black tail jackrabbit, and 
desert cottontail rabbit. Densities on the uplands are low because 
of the dry condition and sparse vegetation. A variety of rodents, 
including squirrels, mice, and rats are also found on the area. 

Habitat attractive to wild bird populations is abundant along 
the Bill Williams River and delta, ttost species identified as 
occuring within the region may be expected occasionally on the 
townsite. Gambel's quail are common, but numbers vary with 
nesting success which is correlated with seasonal moisture and 
vegetative production. Mourning doves are common to abundant 
except during the winter months. 

No concentrations of wildlife have been noted on the proposed 
townsite and no critical habitat for wildlife has been identified, 
except as these lands contribute to the overall habitat utilized 
by the Mexican antelope . 

Private lands within the river floodplain have been developed 
for livestock pasture. These pasture lands are used intermittently 
by big game, upland game, and waterfowl. During the winter months 
200 to 400 geese use these pastures. The lush vegetation and 
available water within the floodplain provide nesting habitat and 
serve to concentrate flights of mourning doves and whitewing doves. 
Substantial numbers of waterfowl use open water areas from the 
vicinity of Planet Ranch downstream to and including Havasu 
National Wildlife Refuge. 

There are two beaver ponds in the Bill Williams River just west 
of the Planet Ranch headquarters. These ponds help concentrate 
waterfowl populations. The endangered Yuma clapper rail has been 
found along the Bill Williams River at certain times of the year; 
there is no evidence of recent use of the proposed townsite by 
the rail. 

The Havasu National Wildlife Refuge is- downstream (west) of the 
proposed townsite. The refuge encompasses- the Bill Williams River and 
floodplain, and provides habitat for numerous and diverse wildlife species. 



13 



:. ..,,■■.,.... .... ■ : .. : : : ..'■- .:.■'.. :■:.■■ . .:. L .. . ■: , 



The townsite lands contribute to the entire ecosystem of an 
extensive desert region important for many species of wildlife. 
Density of wildlife species is low, however, use of these lands 
is related to the natural movements and life habits of all species 
frequenting the region. The importance of the area for wildlife 
cannot be measured solely by its resident wildlife. Ecologically, 
the naturalness of the region is uninterrupted and almost unimpaired 
by human disturbance. Life forms have not been displaced to any 
measurable degree. 

Watershed 

The townsite area does not yield much water or vegetative 
production because of its small size and low precipitation. 
Natural or geologic erosion occurs throughout the area, but there 
is little evidence of accelerated erosion by either wind or water. 
The small washes have some vegetation including grass in the 
bottom, and desert pavement protects the flat ridges between washes. 
The majority of the runoff through the area comes from the upper 
watershed where higher elevation and precipitation produce greater 
runoff. 

Recreation 

At present the public, State, and private unfenced lands on 
the site are open to general public use. Private fenced lands 
within the proposed townsite area are posted against hunting or 
trespassing without permission. 

In general, two types of land areas are involved in recreation 
use: (1) uplands and (2) bottomlands. 

Upland areas have lower scenic qualities and fewer opportunities 
for recreation. There is some rockhounding and small game hunting, 
with use estimated at less than 500 visitors per year. The Planet 
to Yucca road passes through the upland area and provides access 
to other areas of higher recreation potential. The uplands have 
some on-site value as open space. 

Bottomlands, including natural riparian vegetation and irrigated 
lands, hold a variety of high quality recreation opportunities, 
including hunting (waterfowl and small game), nature study, sight- 
seeing and camping, and have exceptional scenic qualities. These 
lands draw an estimated 10,000 visitors per year, mainly sightseers 
and those driving for pleasure along the county road parralleline 
the Bill Williams River. 



14 



HBKBBH— mum 



Off-site public, State, and most undeveloped private lands 
are open to general public use. A number of areas have been 
dedicated and are being managed for recreation and wildlife. 
Other areas offering significant recreation opportunities are: 

1. Bill Williams Mountains 

This 30,000-acre mountain area immediately west of the proposed 
new town development has lands free from formal roads or other man- 
made disturbances and has a potential for a BLM Primitive Area 
designation. These mountains are bounded by Mohave Springs Mesa 
on the north and the Bill Williams River on the south. The United 
States Fish and Wildlife Service has a pending application on a 
portion of this area for expansion of the Bill Williams Unit of 
the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. 

2. Old Planet Townsite Ruins 

These ruins are located adjacent to and just south of the 
Planet Ranch. This site is adjacent to one of the first (1863) 
economical copper mines and smelters to be worked to any extent 
by Americans in Arizona. Very little remains on this site except 
for ruins of a few houses and the foundations of the smelter and 
office buildings. This site has not been proposed for inclusion 
in the National Register of Historic Places at this time. 

3. Swansea Historic Complex (map 2) 

This complex centers around an abandoned townsite established 
in 1909 and is located in Section 32, T. 10 N., R 15 W. It is 
in the middle of the largest copper producing area in Yuma County. 
The site is located approximately 8 miles by air southeast of the 
Planet Townsite and has remnants of numerous houses, the smelter 
housing, offices, and two cemeteries. The old Arizona and Swansea 
Railroad grade can still be traced from Bouse to Swansea even though 
the rails and ties have long been removed. Remnants of an old 
pumping station and waterline from the Bill Williams River to 
Swansea are also part of the complex and are located on private 
lands offered in the exchange. At this time this site is being 
nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. 

4. Lake Havasu 

This large body of water behind Parker Dam is located about 
10 miles west of the proposed Planet Townsite. It provides 
approximately 30,000 surface acres for water-oriented recreational 
activities . 



15 



:.»:! ...:....::■:■. .'. ■ : ..."..... .. ■ . . ./..:■ . : 



Most of the lands adjacent to Lake Havasu are dedicated to 

ZITu * J 11 ' Wildllfe " The f ° ll0Win S is * breakdown of Arizona 
shoreline administration: 

Havasu Wildlife Refuge 8 miles 

(United States Fish and Wildlife Service) 

Lake Havasu State Park o A milaa 

a , . . Jt miles 

ease administered by BLM) 

Bureau of Reclamation Security Zone i mi le 

(no recreation use) 

Bureau of Land Management 2 miles 

5. Parker Strip 

This is a portion of the Colorado River between Parker Dam 
on the north and Headgate Rock Dam on the south near Parker 
(approximately 700 surface acres). The river is clear and deep 
and approximately 600 feet in width. 

The _ Parker Strip is suitable for most water-related outdoor 
recreation activities. However, rapidly increasing use of the 
area for water skiing and boating reduces the suitability of the 
area for swimming and other nonboating activities. 

The Parker Strip is highly developed for all types of uses. 
The Bureau of Land Management, private owners, Metropolitan 
Water District of Southern California, Colorado Indian Tribes, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, and others are involved here. Nearly 
all the shoreline is or will probably be developed for both 
private and public recreation. 

6. Bill Williams Riparian Area 

This area of less than 1,000 acres of land along the Bill 
Williams River has unique natural features. The majority of the 
riparian vegetation is within the Bill Williams Unit of the 
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. The vegetation along the flood- 
Plaxn consists of cottonwood and willows, and, for most of the 
year, there is a live flowing stream. Wildlife in this area are 
numerous and diverse. 

Exclusive of Lake Havasu and the Parker Strip, the off-site 

Ztesl T s \T eSS 7 e ~T 0hahly l6SS than 2 °' 000 visitors P« y^r. 
Access is not good, and pressure has not been heavy. 



16 



SfiMHSErasffi!*;. ■. ; 



Lake Havasu and the Parker Strip present a totally different 
picture. Lake Havasu receives more than an estimated 1 million 
visitor days' use annually-*- which is not excessive for this large 
body of water. The Parker Strip, however, receives more than 
4 million visitor days' use annually. Visitation to the "Strip" 
during peak use periods may exceed the resource capacity. 

The study, "Recreation Uses of the Lower Colorado River 
Valley", 2 made by the University of Southern California Research 
Institute for Business and Economics, March 1967 to March 1968, 
provides detailed information on the recreational use of the Lower 
Colorado River from Davis Dam to the Mexican border. Since the 
study was made over a full 1-year period, it provides information 
on both the summer, or water-orientated visitor, and the winter, 
or primarily desert-oriented visitor, who stayed in the 
Colorado River Valley. The study estimates almost 6 million 
visitor days annually, of which almost 75 percent are concentrated 
on the Parker Strip (town of Parker upriver to Parker Dam) . The 
study describes the Colorado River Valley as a yearlong recreation 
use area which appeals primarily to the young, active, water 
sports enthusiast during the summer and to those seeking a mild 
climate, economical shelter, and opportunities for sightseeing 
and fishing during the winter. 

The London Bridge is located at Lake Havasu City and has an 
impact on the economy of the whole area. The bridge attracts 
more than 1 million visitors per year. 

Minerals 

Examination of the area and a review of geological and mining 
literature failed to disclose any evidence of either past or 
present mining or prospecting on the proposed townsite. Prospecting 
on some of the lands south of the river probably occurred during 
periods of mining activity at the old Planet Mine just south and 
west of the townsite. On five of the seven parcels of BLM land 
within the proposed townsite, the Government does not own the 
mineral estate. During a field examination no evidence of 
mineralization was observed on the other two parcels (Sections 4 
and 5, T. 10 N. , R. 16 W. , and Section 36, T. 11 N., R. 17 W.). 



-•-visitor day = an aggregation of 12 patron hours, one or more 
persons to total 12 hours of use 

^appendix D, list of references, item 5 



17 



Archeology 

At the request of the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co., in August 1972, 
Prescott College conducted an archeological survey of 5,981 acres of 
Federal land selected in the original exchange (appendix H) . This 
intensive survey identified six San Dieguito archeological sites 
(sleeping circles, rock workshops, rock alignments). Although not 
previously recorded in the area of the Planet Townsite, rock align- 
ments and more than 8,000 sleeping circles have been recorded in 
southern Arizona and California. 

Two historical sites have been identified near the townsite: 
Swansea and Old Planet Townsites. The Old Planet Townsite is 
located on private land and is not considered eligible for the 
National Register of Historic Places. Swansea townsite is located 
about 8 miles east of the proposed townsite on both Federal and 
private land. It is in the process of being nominated to the 
National Register of Historic Places. If exchange is completed, the Swansea 
Townsite will come under total Federal ownership. For this reason 
and because the proposed townsite will increase access to the 
site, a 106/2b statement of effect will be completed before the 
land exchange . 

No known National Register sites exist on adjacent State or 
private land. However, BLM cannot conduct a cultural resource 
survey on non-Federal lands to determine cultural resources that 
may be present. If the data from the intensive survey of the 
Federal lands are used as a predictive sample, it appears unlikely 
that any sites of National Register quality exist on State or private 
lands. It is expected that any sites present will be similar to 
those already identified on Federal lands. 



Both Yuma and Mohave Counties have ordinances, codes and 
regulations that are available for implementation and would affect 
development. A few of these would include zoning, subdivision 
sales disclosure laws (PL 90-448), subdivision ordinances, sewage 
and solid waste disposal, air and water quality regulations, and 
building, electrical, and plumbing codes. In the present undeveloped 
state, these controls have no impact. Without the proposed action, 
assuming minimal or no development of the transfer area lands, 
these controls do not have a significant effect. However, the 
controls do exist and any contemplated change in land use would 
be subject to such controls. 



18 



Mohave County's economy is closely tied to natural resource 
use. Grazing has traditionally been extensive in the county and 
it remains an important agricultural component. In recent years, 
some irrigated cotton and alfalfa operations have been introduced, 
but their production is minimal compared to other counties of 
Arizona. Mohave County is one of the few producers of molybdenum 
in the United States. 

The leading retirement and recreation community in the county 
is Lake Havasu City, which began land sales in 1963. The new 
town's impact on the county is quickly seen by a review of population 
statistics. In 1960 Mohave County's population was 7,736, down 
9 percent from 1950; in 1970 the population had increased to over 
25,000, approximately 5,000 of whom resided in Lake Havasu City. 
The population of Mohave County in mid-1975 was estimated to be 
36,000, with 9,6000 to 10,000 people residing in Lake Havasu City. 

The economy of the area is heavily dependent on leisure time 
activities such as entertainment, outdoor recreation and retirement 
living, especially along the river. It is the latter two activity 
groups which are river oriented. Persons primarily interested 
in spending their leisure time in casinos and entertainment 
activities are attracted to the Las Vegas area. (Any such act- 
ivity along the river must be considered supplementary to other 
activity in the area.) 

The following profile of outdoor recreation use and users is 
drawn from a study of the Colorado River from Davis Dam to the 
Mexican Border made by the University of Southern California 
Research Institute for Business and Economics. The study team 
interviewed visitors between March 1967 and March 1968. 

The heaviest use of the river, approximately 72 percent, was 
in the vicinity of Lake Havasu City and Parker. The majority of 
visitors were over 35 years of age (34 percent were over 50 years 
of age) traveling in small family units (56 percent were couples 
alone) . 

The majority of visitors came from Southern California, 47 
percent from Los Angeles and Orange Counties alone. An additional 
9 percent came from Arizona, and another 9 percent from Nevada. 
Most people traveled to the area in a standard automobile, but 
approximately 9 percent came in four-wheel drive vehicles. 



19 



Eighty percent of the yisitors had made previous trips to the 
area; 55 percent of them had made one or more trips to this same 
area the previous year. The majority of visitors stayed less than 
a week per trip, indicating mostly weekend use. However, 20 percent 
stayed between 12 and 39 weeks (over 39 weeks was considered 
permanent residency for the purposes of the study) . Nearly 70 
percent of the visitors brought their own accommodations with them 
in the form of trailers, campers or tents, although approximately 
18 percent used commercial accommodations, the largest percentage 
of any area on the lower Colorado River. What they liked best 
about the area were (in order of response numbers) : "warm weather, 
fishing, good people, scenery, place to relax, and not too crowded". 
What they would most like to see improved were (in order of response 
numbers): "more commercial facilities, improved restrooms, build 
a hospital, better camping facilities, and better recreational 
facilities". Less than one percent thought that more "private 
enterprise property to buy" was needed. 

Activities engaged in by the visitors were (in order of response 
numbers): fishing, sightseeing, boating, (over half engaged in 
these activities), swimming, camping, water skiing, picnicking 
and hiking (at least 25 percent engaged in these activities) . 

A profile of permanent residences was compiled by a consulting 
firm in January 1970 from a series of interviews. Pages 21 through 
24 are directly quoted from the resulting report. 



20 



The typical resident moved to the area within the last three 
years. The majority of residents interviewed, 71.7 percent, 
previously resided in California. However, the bulk of these 
(64.2 percent) were from Southern California, including about 
four percent from Needles. 

An additional 18.9 percent were from Arizona and Nevada, and 
the remaining 9.4 percent were from such diverse areas as 
Oregon, Louisiana, Utah and Japan. 

Two principal reasons given for moving to the Lower Colorado 
River Valley area were: "warm climate", or "getting out of 
the city congestion and smog". Of all reasons given, over 32 
percent had some connection with the climate and location, and 
29 percent were connected with flight from urban problems. 

Approximately one-third of the heads of household interviewed 
were retired. Of those who were actually employed, almost 20 
percent worked for the Santa Fe Railroad in Needles, while the 
majority of the remaining household heads were employed in 
other blue-collar occupations, particularly the construction 
trades. The principal places of employment were Needles, 
California and Bullhead City, Arizona. 

The median age of respondents interviewed was 55 years. Median 
annual family income was $9,450. The average household size 
was 2.3 persons and 62.3 percent of the households interviewed 
contained two persons. 

Eighty-three percent of all households surveyed owned their 
homes. The estimated value of these homes (land and dwelling) 
ranged from $10,000 to $20,000 with a median value of just under 
$16,000. It should be noted that 78 percent of the households 
interviewed were residing in mobile homes placed on lots pur- 
chased for this use, as opposed to being in a mobile home park 
with rental spaces; the balance lived in conventional single 
family dwellings. 

Among the 17 percent of the households who were renting, about 
three -fourths paid rent ranging from $100 to $124 per month, 
with median rent being approximately $110 per month. All of 
the families renting were housed in furnished quarters. 



From the same report a profile of lot owners (without home develop- 
ment) was constructed. 

The typical respondent owned an average of 1.6 lots. The 
range in parcels owned numbered from one to five. 



21 



Over one-half of the respondents indicated purchase of a lot 
for future personal use as follows: 43.3 percent for retire- 
ment; 13.4 percent for vacation home use. The other 43.3 
percent of those interviewed acknowledged lot purchase for 
investment purposes. 

Approximately twenty percent of the respondents indicated 
their lots were presently for sale because of recent illnesses 
and increased taxes. An additional thirteen percent of the 
property owners who bought more than one lot indicated that 
while one was being held for personal use, the others were 
purchased for investment purposes. 

Those respondents planning to use their lot for a retirement 
home indicated an expected annual retirement income range of 
from $4,500 to $8,000. Respondents who had bought lots for pur- 
poses other than a retirement home indicated present annual in- 
comes ranging from $10,000 to $18,000. 

Approximately 23 percent of the household heads responding 
were retired. About thirty percent were employed in profes- 
sional or managerial positions, with the remaining 47 percent 
in various other occupational categories, primarily blue collar 
and services. 



The following description of Lake Havasu City is included because 
of its similarity to the possible results of the proposed action. 

Lake Havasu City, Arizona 

Lake Havasu City is located on the east side of Lake Havasu, 
a 45-mile long lake on the Colorado River. 

Lake Havasu City is being developed as a "new town" on 16,150 
acres bordering Lake Havasu in Arizona. Extensive commercial, 
industrial and recreational development has been undertaken on 
the property, with the primary industrial employment base being 
provided by the McCulloch Corporation, manufacturer of chain 
saws and outboard motors. 

Recently, the McCulloch Corporation purchased the historic 
London Bridge for a reported $2.5 million and a relocation 
cost of $6 million. The bridge, which has been re-erected 
at the site, will become the focal point for a new multi- 
million dollar International Resort Center. Studies made 
for the developer relative to the impact of the bridge on 
Lake Havasu City estimate over 2.8 million persons will visit 
the bridge during the first year after its completion. In 
addition, community income of over $28 million is expected. 

22 



amtukiimtgsBSBBE 



To accommodate this influx, between 800 and 1,100 hotel and 
motel units are initially planned and new restaurants, shops 
and other service facilities are also anticipated. The 
developers report that they committed $15 million for reloca- 
tion of the bridge and construction of the International 
Resort Center. They also anticipate private investment of 
over $35 million in satellite facilities. 

Lake Havasu City is approximately 320 road miles east of 
Los Angeles, 240 miles northwest of Phoenix, and 150 miles 
south of Las Vegas. The development may be reached from the 
north via U.S. 95 south to U.S. 66, through Needles, Califor- 
nia, and Topock, Arizona, to the junction with Arizona High- 
way 95 (10 miles east of Topock). Lake Havasu City is 21 miles 
from the Topock junction with Arizona State Highway 95. 

From the east, Lake Havasu City may be reached via U.S. 66 west 
through Kingman, Arizona; to the junction with Arizona State 
Highway 95 (35 miles west of Kingman); from the west, by taking 
U.S. 66 east through Needles, California and Topock, Arizona, 
to the junction with Arizona State Highway 95 (10 miles east 
of Topock) . 

There is also an airport at Lake Havasu City for commercial 
and private airplanes. 

Lake Havasu Marina is located on the peninsula in Lake Havasu 
State Park. Facilities include 200 slips, a launching ramp, 
floating fuel dock, and a complete range of related sales and 
service outlets. 

Single family lots at Lake Havasu City vary in size from 10,000 
to 20,000 square feet; prices range from about $3,000 to $30,000 
with an average price of $5,900. Apartment lots vary from one- 
half to one acre and sell for $14,000 to $47,000. It should be 
noted that there are no waterfront residential lots in the 
development. 

Commercial lots are typically 50 feet by 50 feet (2,500 square 
feet) and are priced between $9,000 and $20,000. Industrial 
sites are all one acre in size and sell for $25,000 per acre. 
Hotel/motel sites range in size from three-quarters to two 
acres and sell for prices ranging from $30,000 to $110,000. 
Mobile home sites are all 4,500 square feet and sell for 
between $4,500 and $8,500. 

Of particular significance has been the addition of mobile 
home lots of(sic) the reduction of hotel/motel lots. The 
current offering of mobile home lots has been due to in- 
creasing demand for such lots; acreage formerly set aside 
for industrial sites has been used for this purpose. In fact, 
at Pueblo West, Colorado, a new project of the Lake Havasu 



23 



City developers, twenty percent of the lots (6,000 square 
feet in size) are designated for mobile home use due to 
the demand for this type of lot. The reduction of the num- 
ber of hotel/motel lots has been the result of poor sales 
experience. 

The promotion and selling of lands at Lake Havasu City have 
been conducted on a nationwide basis. McCulloch Properties 
has a policy of selling lots only to persons who have 
actually visited Lake Havasu City and seen the lots they 
are buying. McCulloch Properties own and operate two prop- 
jet Electra lis and four Constellations which fly prospective 
customers to Lake Havasu City free of charge. Each customer 
usually makes a deposit equal to his down payment on the lot, 
which is refunded if the lot is not bought after being viewed. 

The Southern California area represents the largest single 
market for lots, accounting for an estimated 20 to 25 per- 
cent of total sales. A main portion of the promotional effort 
for Lake Havasu City has been concentrated in mid-western 
cities which in total have accounted for an estimated 40 to 
50 percent of lot sales. A promotional effort of similar 
magnitude has not yet been developed in the main eastern 
cities. A significant sales response has been experienced 
in the northwestern states. 

Although no exact figures are available, the Holly Development 
Company, which handles sales for Lake Havasu City, indicates 
that the greatest single motivation among buyers is for future 
retirement use. Recreation is also a strong factor, particu- 
larly among buyers from California, Arizona and Nevada. An 
important motivation among all buyers has been the investment 
appeal of property at Lake Havasu City, as evidenced by the 
fact that only eight percent of all lots have been built on. 
Also, it should be noted that with a permanent population of 
over 4,300 persons, a significant number of buyers have pur- 
chased lots for construction of a primary residence. 

Streets at Lake Havasu City are wide, paved and designed in 
a curvilinear pattern to provide attractive vistas, with 
rights-of-way up to 84 feet. The Irrigation and Drainage 
District has developed seven wells, capable of supplying a 
population of 55,000 persons. 

Electricity and telephone service are provided by Citizens 
Utilities Company . 

Electric power and water lines are brought to the property 
at no cost to the purchaser. Natural gas is supplied some 
tracts by Southern Union Gas Company. 

24 



MflDMlUHIHNUUI 



Population projections and increased pressures— the relatively 
high population density of Los. Angeles and its enyirons, and 
related urban and environmental problems have placed considerable 
pressure in recent years on the California desert areas as a source 
of outdoor recreation experiences. These same problems have caused 
many older people to seek retirement living space outside of the 
Los Angeles area. The area treated in this statement is on the 
fringe of the desert recreation activity and may now only be in 
the process of "discovery" as a retirement area. 

Trends in retirement patterns seem to be more stable than the 
fads which often direct recreational activity. Persons are retiring 
earlier, with higher incomes, and with more independence from family 
and social ties than in previous eras. Establishment of retirement 
communities throughout southwestern areas offering warm climate for 
outdoor leisure experiences, pleasant and relaxed environmental 
surroundings, and adequate commercial, social and health services 
have proved to be successful and desired by persons from all over 
the United States. For the impact area, such use is a potential, 
not an immediate use pressure; other areas along the lower river 
have more of this type of use and are not yet saturated. On the 
other hand, other areas also have greater recreation visitor use 
and the correlation may be more than coincidence since many 
visitors to the impact area expressed a desire for more commercial 
facilities, which in turn require a larger resident population. 

Economic Conditions 

The economy of the area revolves around the recreational use 
of the Colorado River and Lake Havasu. 

The 1970 population of Yuma County was 60,827 and is expected 
to increase to 88,000 by 1980. The 19 75 population was estimated 
to be 71,000. The population of Mohave County was 25,857 in 19 70 
and is expected to reach 44,400 by 1980. The 1975 population was 
estimated at 36,600. This would be a 94 percent increase for 
Mohave County and a 45.9 percent increase for Yuma County between 
1970 and 1980. The major part of this growth is expected to occur 
in the Parker and Lake Havasu City areas, and substantial land 
acreage will be needed for community growth and development. 

The population of Lake Havasu City in mid-19 75 was estimated 
to be between 9,600 and 10,000, the population of Lake Havasu City 
is projected to ultimately reach 60,000. The permanent population 
of Parker is approximately 2,000, but the large number of visitors 
to this area has created an impact on all the adjacent areas. 

Visits to the Planet Ranch area on scenic trips and as overflow crowds 
from the river may create a demand for vacation-retirement homesites, 
which is not currently provided by the Parker-Lake Havasu area. 



25 



^.-.^■■VM-^l.t-^;^',, 



nn he 1973 Per capita Personal income for Mohave County was 
94,000. Yuma County per capita personal income for 1973 was 
$4,813. 

The most important economic sectors in Mohave County by 
earnings produced, in order of importance are construction, 
services, wholesale and retail trade, manufacturing, and 
government (Federal, State, and local). In Yuma County the 
order of importance is government, farm earnings, wholesale and 
retail trade, services, construction, and manufacturing. Contract 
construction is the most important producer of earnings in Mohave 
County because of the high level of construction in the Lake 
Havasu City-Bullhead City areas. The contract construction 
sector in Mohave County increased in earnings from $5,601 000 
in 1968 to $14,006,000 in 1969. 

The wholesale and retail sector and the services sector are 
exceptionally high producers of earnings in Mohave County 
apparently a reflection of the high level of outdoor recreation 
use in the area. In contrast, Yuma County shows a relatively 
low percentage of earnings from the services sector. 

The major employment sectors in order of importance for 
Mohave County are: government, trade (wholesale and retail), 
services, contract construction, and manufacturing. In Yuma 
County the major sectors are agriculture, government, trade, 
servxces, manufacturing, and contract construction. Agriculture 
in Mohave County (80 to 90 percent range livestock) is a relatively 
unimportant employer. In contrast, Yuma County, where crop 
production and feeder livestock are dominant, the agricultural 
sector is the most important employer. Along the Colorado River 
recreation use makes the service and trade sectors important. 

Environmental Health and Safety Hazards 

Hazards on and around the proposed townsite are of two types- 
natural and man-caused. The man-caused hazards are few, being 
limited to moving vehicles, mine shafts in the Planet Mine area, 
and fences and other improvements around Planet Ranch. Natural 
hazards are more numerous, including fire, earthquake, poisonous 
plants, poisonous snakes, rabid animals, infectious diseases, 
lightning, floods, heat exhaustion, and sunstroke. Only a few of 
these hazards are a serious threat. The most serious natural 
hazards are extreme heat and summer cloudbursts which can result 
m sudden and dangerous floods along downstream washes. There 
are no known active faults nor has the area been the center of 
historical seismic activity. 



26 



III. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action 



Introduction 



The following unmitigated impacts may be expected if the 
proposed exchanges are consummated and a town is established in 
accordance with present plans of the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. 

Climate 

The proposal for reclassification and subsequent urbanization 
of the area will have no significant impact upon the climate of the 
surrounding area. A possible change in the relative humidity may 
result from increased irrigation. The degree of change will depend 
upon the amount of water subject to evaporation and transpiration 
through the planting and watering of lawns, golf courses, and 
exposure of water surfaces . The effects of this change will only 
be felt in the immediate vicinity of the watered areas because 
of the vastly greater volume of the surrounding drier air mass. 

Vegetation 

Many native plants on the site will be displaced by the development 
and construction of homesites , roads and facilities. The equestrian 
emphasis for the community will result in increased use of all 
annuals and perennials. Off-site use of plants by horses will 
occur yearlong in connection with riding trips into the desert. 
There will also be heavy use of vegetation in all pastures and at 
corral facilities. Use of vegetation on private property within 
the area will be dependent upon the personal discretion of each 
independent property owner. On individual lots desert plant species 
may be removed or destroyed. Plant species in desert washes or 
other areas considered as construction- free zones will be protected 
only as developers, local people, or State laws may require and 
enforce. Land owners may be expected to want more desert plants 
for landscaping. Although prohibited by the Arizona Native Plant 
laws, plants for landscaping may be illegally removed from adjoining 
Federal, State, or private lands. 

Subsurface water of the Bill Williams River was insufficient 
during the summer of 1972 to provide for survival of all riparian 
vegetation downstream from the Narrows. Current irrigation use 
of subsurface flows of the Bill Williams River below Alamo Dam 
does not exceed 12,000 acre-feet annually. An anticipated 12,500 
acre-feet of water will be required to maintain the community and 
2,000 acres of pasture land. At least during drought years like 
1972, utilization of the water table may be excessive and may prevent 
maintenance and growth of riparian vegetation below the Narrows. 
Prominent stands of Cottonwood and willows may perish. 



27 



Soils 

The development of a town will have an adverse effect on soils. 
Construction and other vehicle use will compact some soils and thus 
decrease the infiltration rate and increase runoff and sediment 
yield. On other areas vehicle use will loosen soils and increase 
erosion. Some recreation use will disturb the soils and remove 
protective desert pavement and vegetation. Although the soils do 
not appear to have any severe restrictions that would prevent 
use of septic tank systems, detailed studies have not been made. 
Septic tank design and installation will have to meet the approval 
of county health department standards and the Arizona State Depart- 
ment of Health (appendix K) . 

Topography 

The overall effect of the proposed townsite on the topography 
of the area should be negligible. Plans call for utilizing existing 
landscapes as much as possible in the design of homes and facilities 
to maintain a rustic motif; consequently, cut and fill work needed 
for construction will be held to a minimum on any given site, and 
the planned low density, 5-acre lots will limit the total area 
disturbed. 

Little control by any government entity, however, can be 
exercised over flattening of ridges and changes in alignment of 
washes . The land could be completely cleared as was done at Lake 
Havasu City. 

Geology 

The proposed development will have no impact on the geology of 
the area. 

Water 

As presently planned, development of the proposed town will have 
adverse impacts on both the quantity and quality of water in the area. 

The planned uses of water will have a significant impact upon 
water quality through chemical and biological contamination and 
further total dissolved solids. Depending on the type of treatment, 
urban waste water may still contain a certain amount of pollutants. 
Water thus polluted will enter the water supply through the ground- 
water directly into the stream or through reuse for irrigation, 
which would further increase total dissolved solid concentrations. 



28 



sBSHBBBWMK 



The quality of water used for irrigation of lawns, shrubs, and 
pastures will decrease due to TDS concentration. Depending upon 
the method used, most of the salts in the irrigation water are 
concentrated in the 10 to 25 percent returned to the groundwater 
table as recharge. If irrigation and rain waters are allowed to 
concentrate into runoff through changed drainage patterns, the 
quality of this water will be decreased as a result of increased 
suspension of sediment particles in the water. The degree of 
impact of an increase in TDS on downstream water users is not known. 

The temperature of recharge may slightly increase from the 
urban use of water (appendix J) . 

Air 

The proposed development will have an adverse influence upon 
air quality. 

Particulates in the air will increase as a result of the con- 
struction of roads, the central core service area, and flood control 
structures. Later, as the area becomes more urbanized, the major 
causes of dust will be off-road and equestrian recreation use, 
solid waste disposal and transportation over secondary roads. 

Construction equipment and automobiles will be the primary 
sources of air pollution in the area. As the area continues to 
develop, emissions will increase the amounts of particulates, 
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and photochemical 
oxidents in the air. 

Depending upon construction techniques and secondary road 
surfacing standards, particulates in the air surrounding the 
urban area may increase from the present background level of 
26 to 35 micrograms per cubic meter to above the allowable standard. 

Aesthetics 

The proposed town will change the visual quality of the 
developed area, transforming it from a natural desert landscape 
to one upon which roads and buildings will intrude. 

Noise 



If the development proceeds as envisioned by Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Co. , noise levels would increase during and after 
construction. Noise levels could exceed 90 decibels during 
construction, distrubing both workmen and wildlife on the benchlands , 



29 



IfBlfflillffllilMlwri . ■■■:. :,:^SH^^^^^HH^BBB«raraHa^ 



After construction the community would create noise from 
traffic and normal urban living. Traffic would probably produce 
the greatest noise. Most traffic noise would be concentrated 
near the center of the development. Noises toward the exterior 
of the community would not be concentrated. Motorcycles and 
other off-road vehicles could create considerable noise. 

The traffic in the Bill Williams River Canyon would disturb 
the opportunity for solitude that now exists and could also 
disturb resident wildlife. 

Land Use 

To support a population of 1,000 to 2,000 people minimal 
services required include fire and police protection, solid waste 
disposal facilities, sanitary disposal facilities, water facilities, 
road maintenance, electric facilities, and medical facilities. 

At present, Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. plans no industrial 
development for the community which the company expects to be a 
retirement and recreation community. 

Utilities furnished would include electricity, telephone, 
water, and garbage collection. There would have to be individual 
waste disposal systems for each home. Initial installation of these 
facilities would adversely affect the immediate construction area 
by the accompanying dust and noise during construction. 

Livestock Grazing 

The elimination of cattle grazing on the townsite area would 
have a beneficial environmental impact. Grazing occurs mostly 
in the washes which may continue to be used. The land offered 
for exchange is along the Bill Williams River and is better grazing 
land than the proposed townsite land. 

Wildlife 



Wildlife habitat destruction would result from implementation 
of the proposed project. A loss of habitat would occur directly 
through conversion of surface resources. Habitat loss would result 
from the construction of roads, housing developments, service 
facilities, a golf course, and other recreation facilities. Increased 
human activity would adversely affect movement and life habits of 
most wildlife species within the area. The expanded human activities 
will cause adverse impacts on wildlife species beyond the boundaries 
of the development. 



30 



Rugged terrain, particularly in those areas inhabited by desert 
bighorn sheep, would receive less human disturbance than those 
areas more readily accessible to vehicles. Encroachment into 
desert bighorn sheep areas by the occasional energetic recreationist, 
hiker, or horseman would add to psychological stresses on bighorn 
sheep populations . 

Factors affecting the declining bighorn sheep populations 
in Arizona include dam building and water projects, land 

developments, highway and road construction, recreationists and recreation 
developments, poaching, and competition with livestock and burros. 
Bighorn sheep have been reduced in number or no longer occur in 
various mountain ranges within the State where encroachment on 
habitat and human activities have been excessive. 

Development of the Planet Townsite will be a threat to bighorn 
sheep populations in the adjoining region. Mountain ranges where 
the impact may be expected include the Bill Williams Mountains, 
the Buckskins, the Rawhides, the Mohaves, Aubrey Peak, Castaneda 
Peak, and Aubrey Hills. 

The nearness of bighorn sheep lambing ground to the townsite 
may further result in harassment of desert bighorn sheep during 
the critical lambing period which could result in the eventual 
elimination of the sheep presently using the area. 

Development of the Planet Townsite would result in a further 
reduction in habitat available for the limited population of 
Mexican antelope that frequent the area. All habitat currently 
used by the Mexican antelope must be considered crucial to its 
survival. The proposed action would interrupt the natural move- 
ments and migrations of this species, and disturbances or 
harassment resulting from increased human activities would probably 
eliminate the local population. 

Small game species, primarily quail and doves, probably would 
not be materially affected by the proposed development. Loss of 
wildlife would occur in those areas of high density development 
and occupancy, and the wildlife presently living there would be 
removed. Additional people would result in increased hunting 
pressures . 

The proposed increase in irrigated pasture may benefit water- 
fowl by providing them with additional feeding areas . 



31 



UnHH^HHB 



Paved highway construction from near Havasu Wildlife Refuge 
through the townsite would be expected to result in increased 
highway deaths of wildlife. The highway from Havasu Lake to the 
townsite will cross natural travel routes used by desert bighorn 
sheep and desert mule deer enroute to water. Increased traffic 
on a paved highway must be considered as a hinderance to those 
natural movements and present an increased hazard to all wildlife. 
The nearness of the townsite highway to the riparian habitat of 
the Bill Williams River could disturb all species of wildlife 
associated with the river bottom. The attraction of beaver ponds 
may be expected to encourage increased visitation by the public. 

The development plan calls for the main entrance to the 
development to be in the southwest corner of the project. The 
road would be approximately h mile from the beaver dams at the 
Narrows area. This road could have an adverse impact on the 
beaver living there because of increased harassment. There will 
be dust and noise during the construction phase and vehicle noise 
after completion. Paved roads would also increase the rate of 
runoff from thunderstorms. Although the present plans are to 
pave the existing road up the Bill Williams River without 
changing its location, upgrading may require large cuts and fills 
that will encroach upon riparian habitat. 

Development of a remote and undisturbed natural area would 
create direct conflict with wildlife. Small rodents burrow in 
developed lawns, gardens, and golf courses. Bighorn sheep, deer, 
and feral burros might, on occasion, utilize ornamental shrubbery, 
flowers, and lawns. Coyotes and foxes would occasionally visit 
the area and other conflicts might occur with skunks , rabbits, 
and other species. Diseases such as rabies and bubonic plague 
may cause problems due to the increased number of humans in the area. 

The proposed land exchange would result in additional lands 
becoming available upstream from the Planet Ranch for continued 
maintenance, protection, and management of riparian habitat by 
BLM to benefit wildlife. 

Watershed 

Roads, paved areas, buildings, and other man-made features in 
the proposed development would affect the watershed in the area 
by increasing water runoff and erosion. The plan does not contem- 
plate development in the present drainages, but development on the 
ridges and upland areas will concentrate the runoff and increase 
the erosion potential. 



32 



SraKOBBBBHBS^-': " " 



The major impact on the surrounding area will be from recreation 
and off-road vehicle use which will radiate out from the townsite 
with the heaviest concentration on immediately adjacent lands. 
Damage to vegetation and desert pavement will decrease ground 
cover and increase erosion potential but the development should 
not significantly increase sedimentation in the river. 

Recreation 

The community will create new demands and provide new opportunities 
for outdoor recreation. 

Impacts on recreation resources which could result from increased 
people pressures are: 

1. Bill Williams Mountains 

Part of this area may no longer qualify as a primitive area, 
largely due to the proximity of the town to the east, and the 
sights and sounds created by the population. Also, there would be 
increased use of the area for hiking, horseback riding, and nature 
study . 

2. Lands immediately adjacent to the townsite would be used by 
motorcycles and minibikes. Using the Lake Havasu City development 
as a model, one can project a band of such use around the area: 
intensive use out to 1 mile, and use rapidly decreasing in intensity 
beyond. Four-wheel drive vehicles, dune buggies, and motorcycles 
would use the roads, trails and washes radiating from the city. 
Areas of concentration probably would be the Planet Mine area which 
is laced with roads, the powerline access road west and east of 

the townsite, the sandy bottom of the Bill Williams River east of the 
ranch lands, Castaneda Wash, and other dry washes in the area. 

3. The historic Planet ruins would probably receive a significant 
increase in use. Unchecked, this use could result in eventual 
destruction of the historic remains. 

4. With the new population pressures, hobby mining and rockhounding 
for mineralized specimens might become a significant use. 

5. The Swansea historic complex would receive added visitor use, 

but lack of convenient access should restrict numbers and the associated 
impacts. Nevertheless, some of the historic features at this site 
would be altered with only minor increases in visitation. 



33 



6. The Bill Williams riparian area would receiye increased use 
for nature study and sightseeing. 

Minerals 

The establishment of the proposed townsite should have no 
immediate effect on the use of any mineral resource. No resource 
minerals other than sand and gravel are known to exist on the 
actual townsite, and these are sufficient on adjacent lands to 
supply any conceivable demand. 

On only two of the seven parcels of BLM land within the 
proposed townsite (240 acres) , Federally owned mineral rights 
are involved. Most of the mineral rights on the public lands 
involved have previously passed out of Federal ownership and are 
presently owned by either the State of Arizona or the Santa Fe 
Railroad Company. 

Archeology 

The proposed action would have both direct and indirect impacts 
on the archeological resources of the townsite. Those cultural 
resources already identified will be destroyed or damaged by 
construction, recreation use, and trails. Cultural resources 
on State or private lands within the townsite will also suffer 
damage. Ruins next to the Old Planet Townsite and Swansea will also suffer 
through increased access. "Pot hunting" is a prevalent southwestern 
pastime. It is expected that the increased access into the area 
will lead to an increase in pot hunting and vandalism. 

Land Use 

Development of the Planet Townsite will place a new area in direct 
competition for sales of homesites with other nearby developments such as 
Moovalya Estates, Lake Havasu City, the Colorado Indian Tribes, 
Bullhead City, and Mohave Indian Reservation developers. Although 
nothing indicates that additional subdivisions are required for 
immediate occupancy in this part of Arizona, the development of a 
new community could affect the growth rate in these areas. 

Since Mohave County has jurisdiction oyer most of this area, 
the impact of the proposal would increase the county's workload 
in many areas. Yuma County would be involved with the county 
road that provides access to the area. 

Mohave County would have to create a suitable governmental 
entity and a reasonable tax base. It would also have to provide 
police protection by the county sheriff's department, maintenance 
of a sanitary landfill, fire protection, zoning and planning, 
school busing, road development and maintenance, compliance checks 
on building permits, and health facilities. 

34 



The development of a new community may cost the county more 
money than the community contributes because of the cost of pro- 
viding services. 

The proposed project would increase the load for the county 
planners since they must plan for the desired amenities in the new 
area. Planning, zoning, and all other aspects of county government 
would have to be supervised under the Mohave County subdivision 
requirements, and each item would correspondingly increase the 
workload of the county. Each sale of property in the project 
would require the county recorder, assessor, and treasurer to 
process the transaction. Since the planned development is 
"retirement oriented" the new residents might further change the 
political structure of Mohave County. 

Economic Impacts 

The mining industry and agriculture would change very little 
since no mining occurs in this area and the lands in agriculture 
would remain in agriculture. 

The increase in population would have an impact on the area. 

This new project would increase construction in the area, 
creating additional job opportunities. 

Environmental, Health, and Safety Hazards 

Development of the proposed community would introduce to the 
area hazards common to communities. With more people in the area 
the number of victims of natural hazards (snakebite, heat exhaustion, 
and flash floods) will increase. 

Wildlife continuing to live in the area will be affected by 
increased traffic across trails to water, diseases contracted from 
domestic livestock and poultry, and losses of some of the smaller 
varieties to dogs and cats. Domestic cats and dogs in turn will 
be subject to rabies and plague from wild animals and insects. 

The number of man-caused range fires may increase. Concentrations 
of dust and smog will increase in the area as a result of increased 
population. The concentration of people will increase the hazard 
from flash floods. More people will also be involved in old mine 
accidents . 

Wildlife and livestock on the highways will create traffic hazzards, 



35 



Unknown or Partially Understood Impacts 

There are unknown factors relating to almost every phase of 
assessing the potential impact of a development of this type. 
Where simple cause and effect relationships exist, the results 
of a given action can be predicted accurately. Where a number 
of variables are involved, however, predictions are the sum of the 
choices and assumptions made on the subject. These predictions 
may or may not give a true picture of what will eventually happen. 
Potential impacts vary widely according to the basic assumptions 
made. All potential impacts are important for preserving either 
the environment or natural resources . 

For example, the proposed developments will adversely affect 
bighorn sheep, the Yuma clapper rail, and Mexican antelope. How 
much adverse impact, however, cannot be accurately predicted. 

Although some archeological sites have been identified, the 
total number and importance of sites on and around the project 
area are currently unknown. Therefore, the potential impact of 
development in this area is also unknown. 

The long-range effects of existing and proposed structures 
and septic tanks on the quantity and quality of water are imperfectly 
understood because of a lack of specific data. Vegetation along 
some downstream areas of the Bill Williams River is currently dying. 
Possible causes include a 2-year drought, the recent (1968) 
construction of Alamo Dam 25 miles upstream, and local beaver dams. 
The interrelationships are already complex, and community development 
in the area would make them even more complex. The impact that 
increasing total dissolved solids in water will have on downstream 
water users is not fully understood, although such impacts are 
recognized to be adverse. With additional data these impacts can 
be quantified. 

Various ecological interrelationships may be adversely affected 
at some stage of this development in ways, or to degrees, that cannot 
yet be measured. 



IV. Mitigating Measures Included in the Proposed Action 

If the proposed exchange is consummated, the patents (deeds) 
issued by BLM would not contain any covenants governing the use 
to which the lands would be put or the terms or conditions of such 
use. Nothing in the patents would require the company to develop 
the lands according to its plans and nothing would prevent the 
company from selling all or part of the lands to others. 



36 



Vegetation and Soils 

Plants displaced through construction of roads, residences, 
or other facilities may serve to partially satisfy the demand for 
plants needed for landscaping. 

The developer indicates that deed restrictions will be 
imposed to lessen overall disturbances of the soil and plants. 
The general plan of development, as well as deed and architectural 
design limitations, make the following specifications for the 
Planet development: (1) low density 5-acre lots, (2) minimum 
landscaping to provide a rustic western setting, (3) minimum 
construction within drainage channels, and (A) designation of 
suitable areas for off-road vehicle use within the townsite area. 

Topography 

Plans call for using existing landscapes as much as possible 
in the design of homes and facilities to maintain a rustic motif. 
Consequently, cut and fill work needed for construction will be minimized 
on any given site, and the planned low-density (development) will 
limit the total area disturbed. 

Water 

Federal, State, and county sewage treatment and septic tank 
regulations apply to the plan of development (appendix K) , and 
water quality degradation will be controlled by these requirements. 
A low-density rustic desert landscape theme will reduce the need 
for irrigation water. Detention structures approved under plans authorized 
by the State of Arizona will reduce the potential for flood or 
soil displacement by runoff. 

Air 

Contamination resulting from construction will be of short 
duration. Paving of primary and secondary roads will reduce 
particulate matter. All residents will utilize electricity 
rather than natural gas. Natural air movements in the area 
reduce the likelihood of stagnant air or inversion. The development 
is not anticipated to have problems meeting present ambient air 
quality standards for Arizona. 

Aesthetics 

Deed restrictions imposed by the developer will not permit 
single family dwellings to exceed one level which will thereby 
reduce the visual impact . An overhead powerline will approach 
the area from the south, but only about 1 mile of overhead line 
will be added to that already existing. 



37 



The sanitary landfill will be operated according to Federal 
and State standards. 

The visual impact of the development may be reduced by the plan 
for low-density development, emphasis of rustic desert setting, 
maintenance of natural theme, and the continuance of irrigated 
pasture lands within the Bill Williams floodplain. Underground 
electric distribution lines will also reduce aesthetic conflict. 

The plan of development for a residential rather than industrial 
community will limit the potential noise impact on the region. 

Land Use 

The developer has proposed deed restrictions to assure that a 
high standard of development is maintained. The restrictions 
provide for architectural control, uniform fencing, prohibition of 
obtrusions on the lot, residences of a minimum of 1,200 square feet 
dwelling space, prohibition of subdivision of lots, easements for 
public services, and compliance with the uniform building code, 
national electric code, and uniform plumbing code. Additional 
restrictions could prevent the establishment of mobile home 
facilities except during a 6-month interim period during construction, 
Direct vehicle access from lots to the highway will be prohibited. 

Covenants and conditions of the declaration run with the land 
and shall be binding upon all parties for 25 years and extended 
thereafter in 10-year increments. These conditions can only be 
changed where a majority of the owners agree to modification of 
the covenants. 

All utilities will be underground within the community. Low- 
density development is planned. This will reduce visual and noise 
impacts . 

The developer has identified planning and zoning requirements 
and has provided for areas required for water drainage channels 
and water flow retardation basins. A portion of the development 
has been designated as an agricultural-residential district and 
the remainder as an open space district. Mohave County subdivision 
regulations and planning ordinances apply. All relevant State and 
Federal laws must also be met.* Where applicable, enforcement of 



*State Air Pollution Control — chapter 14 
Public Health Control — chapter 6 
Arizona State Dept. of Health— amendments to rules and regualtions 

for air pollution control 
Subdivision Regulations, Mohave County, 19 70 
Planning Ordinances, Mohave County, 1968 



38 



.....'. .._. _.................. 



county, State, and Federal laws may be expected by the appropriate 
government agency. Deed restrictions and covenants may be expected 
to be enforced by the developer or as necessary by individual 
residents through civil action. 

Sanitation laws on waste disposal and sewage treatment controls 
are adequate to minimize the impact of development. Present air 
and water quality controls provide regulation by the State and 
county over these aspects. 

Wildlife 

With development and intensive management, the private lands 
to be acquired by the Federal Government in the proposed exchange 
could provide for mitigation of some wildlife values lost through 
site development. The private lands offered for exchange include 
bighorn sheep habitat, Yuma clapper rail habitat, Mexican antelope 
habitat, and lands of primitive character with historic, scenic, 
recreation, and open space values. 

The riparian habitat along the Bill Williams River is important 
to wildlife, and if acquired by the Federal Government, these lands 
can be managed for the benefit of wildlife. 

Recreation 

The recreation facilities provided for within the community 
can reduce recreation impact on the adjacent lands. 

Improved access will increase the area available for recreation. 

Minerals 

No mitigating measures proposed. 

Archeology 

Before the completion of the exchanges, mitigative measures 
similar to those suggested in appendix H will be instituted. Since 
a land exchange does not allow stipulations to be attached to the 
deed, the recommendation to make a park around the two sleeping 
circles cannot be implemented and these will be mitigated as other 
sites have been. 

A 106/2b Statement of Effect will be prepared on the Swansea 
complex before the completion of the exchange and submitted to the 
State Historic Preservation Officer and to the Advisory Council on 
Historic Preservation for comment. The 106/2b statement will 
contain a program of mitigation for the site, aimed at protecting 
it from vandalism. 



39 



V. Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided 
Should the Proposal be Implemented 

This environmental statement has identified various impacts 
that will remain and that can affect the natural environment even 
if all mitigation measures of the proposal are effected. Mitigating 
measures include those features specifically identified in the 
proposal or those features imposed by virtue of Federal, State, 
or county laws and regulations . 

Vegetation 

Less than 5 percent of the native desert vegetation on the 
site will be replaced by structures or exotic vegetation. All 
annuals and perennials in equestrian areas will be subject to heavy 
use. Riparian vegetation downstream from the water supply during 
dry years may not be sustained. Some desert vegetation will be 
removed for landscaping of private residences. 

Soil 

Soil productivity will be lost where concrete and asphalt 
are placed on the surface. Accelerated wind and water erosion 
may be expected where soil is denuded of vegetation. Natural 
drainage channels will be particularly susceptible to soil loss 
after protective vegetation is removed. Off-road vehicle use 
and other forms of intensive recreation will result in compacted 
soil. 

Less than 5 percent of the townsite will undergo soil disturbance 
during construction and development. The disturbed soil will 
become impervious to water because of surfacing and compaction. 
Increased runoff will occur. Off-road vehicle use within the urban 
area may increase the potential for disturbance of surface resources 
on adjoining Federal lands. 

Water 

The 500 acre-ft of water used by the community will not be 
available for future agricultural use. During drought years, demand 
for underground water may exceed the recharge and, consequently, 
downstream surface flows of the Bill Williams River could terminate 
or be seriously reduced. Agricultural and community use of the 
underground water will result in degradation of water quality. Water 
quality within the Bill Williams River will further deteriorate as 
the result of increased total dissolved solids in the waste water 
and irrigation water. An increase in water temperature may also 
be expected. 



40 



:;:;:: ----.^-^ry-. 



Air 



The State standards for particulate matter may be exceeded 
during periods of construction. Particulates of sulphur dioxide, 
nitrogen, carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidents will increase 
commensurate with community growth. 

Aesthetics 

The aesthetics of a remote undisturbed desert region will be 
altered to provide for the residential community. Visual scarring 
of the landscape from the development will detract from the natural 
scene. Increased littering will occur. Atmospheric haze will 
increase from vehicle use of unpaved roads and other activities 
of man . 

The natural desert open space landscape will be modified. 
Increased recreation use throughout the region will affect the 
aesthetics of the area to the degree not constrained by State 
or Federal laws or other management measures by the administering 
land agencies. 

Noise 

Increase of existing noise levels associated with the community 
and its development cannot be prevented. 

Wildlife 

Urbanization of the townsite will eliminate upland desert 
wildlife habitat and affect adjacent public lands through human 
disturbance associated with the community. Recreation uses will 
extend over wildlife habitat throughout the region to the degree 
that access may allow. Natural movements of Mexican antelope 
and desert bighorn sheep within the region will be disrupted. 
Increased road traffic will result in increased highway deaths of 
wildlife and provide additional human impact on wildlife resources 
along the Bill Williams River and Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. 
Life patterns of small game species and migratory birds on and 
adjacent to the cultivated lands of the Planet Ranch will be dis- 
turbed by increased human activity. 

Disturbances to wildlife on the townsite and adjacent public 
lands will increase in proportion to the growth of the community. 
Due to increased human activity and noise levels, increased human 
activity in remote areas inhabited by bighorn sheep and Mexican 
antelope will be a threat to these species. If the endangered Yuma 
clapper rail is still using the townsite area, the development will 
displace the rail. 



41 



Recreation 

A natural desert landscape will be transposed into a low-density 
urban community. Adjacent lands will receive increased recreation 
pressure from the inhabitants. Some undisturbed environments will 
receive increased use from horseback riders, hikers, and general 
recreationists. The visual impact of the community within the 
previously unspoiled desert landscape cannot be avoided. The 
feeling of solitude one can enjoy in an undisturbed desert region 
will be lost. 

Archeology 

Although archeological studies are planned that would minimize 
some of the negative effects of the proposed action, there is 
always unavoidable destruction of archeological resources. 
According to the Prescott College archeological report, however, 
those resources that will be destroyed are not the only examples 
and, therefore, not so rare that their destruction would create a 
void in the archeological record. 



VI. The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's 
Environment and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity 

Short-term uses of this area are considered to be those associ- 
ated with the natural or present uses of the area, such as wildlife, 
livestock, and recreation. Long-term uses of this area are considered 
to be those associated with the proposed townsite, since conversion 
of the land to urban use would be a long-term commitment. 

The construction of a planned community will, in time, change 
or eliminate some of the present uses. Wildlife such as beaver, 
Yuma clapper rail, Mexican antelope, and desert bighorn sheep may 
be adversely affected. Other species of wildlife such as quail 
and various songbirds may adapt or find conditions more to their 
liking in an urban environment. 

Nonrenewable resources such as archeological remains may be 
changed or destroyed by the intrusion of man. 

The soil productivity will decrease in some areas because of 
increased erosion, compaction, and paving. But with watering 
of plants and shrubs, the overall production of vegetation may 
increase. 



42 



If the proposed town would provide long-term enhancement of a 
pleasant life style and atmosphere for its occupants, the human 
environment would be enhanced. 



VII. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 
Vegetation 

Removal of vegetation will occur with development of the 
community. This action will be irretrievable only insofar as 
the surface is converted to use or development which prevents 
revegetation. The low plant density of the site should prevent 
extensive loss of plants through development or use. 

Aesthetics 

The natural landscape will be altered with structural and 
surface features common to a community. Atmospheric and water 
quality will be degraded as a consequence of human activities 
within the region. 

Residential development will detract from the relatively 
undeveloped natural aspect of the area. 

Land Use 

Allowance of the exchanges would, in effect, subject adjacent 
lands to pressure for future development. 

Wildlife 



Any development of the area that can threaten the survival 
of an endangered species of wildlife must be considered 
irreversible. A reduction in the water table and the resulting 
loss of riparian vegetation of marshland within the Bill Williams 
arm of the Havasu National Wildlife Refuge could further restrict 
habitat essential for the survival of the Yuma clapper rail, which 
is an endangered species . 

Development of the Planet Townsite will encroach directly on 
habitat used by a remnant population of Mexican antelope. The 
combination of human harassment and loss of habitat will affect 
the survival of Mexican antelope. Lambing grounds adjacent to 
the site are crucial to the survival of bighorn sheep within the 
region. Damage caused by human encroachment into these areas for 
recreation or other activities can be considered irreversible 
where the wilderness character of bighorn sheep range is lost and 
where bighorn are displaced or decline significantly in number. 
Human activities south of the Bill Williams River have caused 
irreversible destruction of important habitat for bighorn sheep. 

43 



Recreation 

The primitive or wilderness aspects of the area will be lost. 
Archeology 

Since archeological remains comprise a limited and nonrenewable 
resource base, any action that reduces this base represents an 
irreversible commitment of resources. Mitigation studies and "set- 
asides" for public exhibit will not lessen these commitments since 
some sites will be lost through development. 



VIII. Alternatives 



No Action 



If no action is taken to exchange lands, then present private 
and public land could not be consolidated into a contiguous area 
for a townsite development. Development could proceed, however, 
on all or part of the private lands within the area. Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Co. has indicated that residential development of 
the private lands suitable for development will occur even though 
the exchange is not consummated (see letter, appendix F, from 
Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Attorneys for Arizona Ranch and Metals Co.) 
The proposed 500-homesite development could be modified slightly 
and developed to over 400 homesites on land presently owned by 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. The proposed development could also 
be modified considerably to a much heavier development density. 

If no action is taken, there would still be adverse environmental 
impacts. Development on fragmented private lands could have as 
much or more impact than the proposed action. Adjoining public 
lands interlinked with State and private lands would be traversed 
by all uses associated with development. Interlinked public land 
would lose its present primitive character. Management of inter- 
linked lands for public interest would become more difficult. 

Offered private lands may not be available for wildlife or 
other public interests. There would be a reduced tax base for 
the county and State and less economic gain to local communities 
for services, goods, and products. There might also be less 
improvement opportunity at nearby communities and less demand 
for financing and governmental services . 



44 



..'.;■; i ill mm ihiiiiii inn mniiiiiiiHiiii ill iiiiiiiiiwwi^ii 



**""™*™ ,l " ,l ™ — 1 ^™° , ™°""" , "™ — ^" — HTntM^MHHIiMfflliir 



Modify Exchanges 

Unlimited possibilities exist for modifying the proposed 
exchange. After the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement, Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. modified their exchange 
(chapter 1) . 

The proposed exchanges could be modified to exclude some lands 
and add others. No specific changes have been considered, but if 
private land on the Bill Williams River adjacent to the bighorn 
sheep lambing grounds were transferred to the government, there 
could be less human impact on the bighorn, a more permanent 
watering place for bighorn sheep and deer, and an undisturbed 
area for wildlife to cross the river. 

The consequences on adjoining lands will continue as pre- 
viously described if a townsite to accommodate 500 families is 
developed within the described area. Modification of the exchange 
proposal could not be expected to detract significantly from the 
impacts of the proposed community. 

A reduction in acreage allowed for transfer from Federal 
ownership could reduce environmental consequences associated with 
the plan of development only where development density is also 
relatively reduced. Increased residential density could offset 
any benefits expected to result from reduction in acreage 
transferred from Federal ownership. 

Planned development on private lands can proceed by design 
of the owner as consistent with county, State, and Federal laws 
and regulations. Modification of the transfer could not assure 
that improved public benefit would result . 

Public Acquisition of Private and State Lands 

Private lands in Planet Ranch could be acquired by the 
Federal Government through exchange, purchase, or a combination 
of the two. Such action could eliminate the townsite develop- 
ment and tend to maintain the present undeveloped nature of this 
particular area. 

Other Federal lands could be offered in exchange for private 
and State lands within the project area. Lands offered would need 
to be acceptable to the State and private land holders. The 
offered lands would need to have the potential for a similar development 
if the exchange method were adopted. 



45 



A substitution of this nature should only be made within the 
framework of an approved statewide land use plan. These plans 
have not been developed by the State of Arizona. Political, 
social, economic, and environmental considerations are required 
to project the need and suitable locations for future cities. 

It is questionable whether other sites with potential for 
development could be identified on national resource lands where 
a similar environmental impact would not result from a townsite 
development. BLM does not have the authority to purchase 
State or private lands. If the private and State lands have 
outstanding public values that could be protected only by 
Federal ownership, then Congressional action could be taken to allow 
public acquisition by purchase. 

Direct Sale of Land 

With enabling legislation, direct sale of the Federal land to 
the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. would be possible. The offered 
private lands would not be available to mitigate lost wildlife 
habitat and for other public purposes. There would, however, be 
an increased tax base for the counties and the State. Other 
environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed exchange. 



IX. Consultation and Coordination with Others 

In accordance with the CEQ Guidelines, copies of the Draft 
Statement (DES 73-18) were sent to approximately 250 different 
organizations, governmental agencies, and private citizens who 
had indicated an interest in this proposal. 

Of those contacted, we received a total of 51 written replies. 
Copies of each response are included in this final statement as 
appendix F. 

The majority of the comments can be divided into four general 
categories : 

1. Those favoring the proposed exchange and townsite development. 

2. Those opposing the townsite development and/or requesting that the 
decision be delayed pending further study and planning. 

3. Those who raised questions and/or commented on the adequacy of 
the data. 

4. Those who offered additional information concerning possible 
environmental impacts . 



46 



A number of comments contained a combination of the previous 
categories. The text of this final statement has been revised to 
include additional data or clarify items that were questioned by 
those submitting comments. 

Comments received from various groups concerning the need, design, 
or economics will be considered before making a decision on which 
course of action to take. Within this document, consideration is 
given to those comments that relate to anticipated environmental 
impacts. 

Specific comments on items or issues mentioned in each letter 
received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement are made in 
connection with each response; both are contained in appendix F 
of this statement. 

Thirty days following the release of this Final Environmental 
Impact Statement, the Bureau of Land Management may publish a 
Proposed Classification Decision which will be distributed to 
all concerned agencies, groups, and individuals. A decision will 
be made whether to hold a public hearing after we receive comments 
from the public on the proposed classification. 



47 



APPENDICES A through K 



48 



Appendix A 
Page 1 



Blue Palo-verde 
Yellow Palo-verde 
Mesquite 
Desert ironwood 
Jerusalem- thorn 
Salt cedar 
Athel tamarisk 
Fremont-cottonwood 
Willow 
Creosote bush 

Crucifixion thorn 
Smoke tree 
Brittle-bush 
Bur-sage 
Mormon tea 
Range ratany 
Saguaro 

Staghorn cholla 
Barrel cactus 
Teddy Bear cholla 
Ocotillo 
Catclaw 

Wild buckwheat 

Galleta 

Six weeks grama 

Six weeks needle grama 

Six weeks three awn 

Three awn 

Filaree 

Indian wheat 

Cattail 

Arrowweed 

Bullrush 



Plants 

Cercidium floridium 
Cercidium microphyllum 
Prosopis .iuliflora 
Olneya tesota 
Parkinsonia aculeata 
Tamarix gallica 
Tamarix aphylla 
Populus fremontii 
Salix sp . 
Larrea tridentata 

Koeberlinia spinosa 
Dalea spinosa 
Encelia sp . 
Franseria dumosa 
Ephedra sp. 
Kramer ia grayi 
Cereus giganteus 
Opuntia versicolor 
Ferocactus sp. 
Opuntia sp . 
Fouquieria splendens 
Acacia greggii 

Eriogonum sp. 
Hilar ia jamesii 
Bouteloua barbata 
Bouteloua aristidoides 
Aristida adscensionis 
Aristida arizonica 
Erodium cicutorium 
Plantrgo insularis 

Typha domingensis 
Pluchea sp. 
Scirpus sp . 



49 



MAMMALS 



APPENDIX A 
Page 2 



Desert bighorn sheep 



Ovis canadensis nelsoni or 
Ovis canadensis mexicana 



Desert mule deer 
Cottontail rabbit 
Blacktailed rabbit 

Beaver 
Muskrat 
Porcupine 
Raccoon 

Bobcat 
Coyote 

Desert kit fox 
Gray fox 

Striped Skunk 
Spotted Skunk 

Badger 

Ringtailed cat 
Yuma mountain lion 



Odocoileus hemionus eremica 
Sylvilagus audubonii 
Lepus californicus 

Castor canadensis 
Ondatra zibethica 
Erethizon dorsatum 
Procyon lotor 

Lynx rufus 

Canis latrans 

Vulpes velox 

Urocyon cinereoarcenteus 

Mephitis mephitis 
Spilogale putorius 

Taxidea taxus 
Bassariscus astutus 
Felis concolor browni 



Mexican pronghorn 
Burro 

Spotted bat 

Pallid bat 

California leaf-nosed bat 

Arizona myotis 

Cave myotis 

Yuma myotis 

Western pipistrel 
Mexican freetail bat 

Yuma antelope squirrel 
Whitetail antelope squirrel 
Roundtail ground squirrel 

Valley pocket gopher 



Antilocapra americana mexicana 
Equus a sinus 

Euderma maculata 
Antrozous pallidus 
Macrotus californicus 
Myotis occultus 
Myotis velifer 
Myotis yumanensis 

Pipistrellus hesperus 
Tadarida brasiliensis 

Ammo s pe rmoph i lus harrisi 
Ammospermophilus leucurus 
Citellus tereticaudus 

Thomomys bottae 



50 



MAMMALS 



APPENDIX A 
Page 3 



Longtail pocket mouse 

Arizona pocket mouse 

Desert pocket mouse 

Rock pocket mouse 

Spiny pocket mouse 

Western harvest mouse 

Canyon mouse 

Cactus mouse 

Deer mouse 

House mouse 

Southern grasshopper mouse 

Merriam kangaroo rat 
Desert kangaroo rat 

Hispid cotton rat 
Whitethroat woodrat 
Desert wood rat 

Crawford shrew 



Perognathus formosus 
Perognathus amplus 
Perognathus penicillatus 
Perognathus intermedius 
Perognathus spinatus 
Reinthrodontomys megalotis 
Peromyscus crinitus 
Peromyscus eremicus 
Peromyscus maniculatus 
Mus musculus 
Onychomys torridus 

Dipodomys merriami 
Dipodomys deserti 

Sigmodon hispidus 
Neotoma albiqula 
Neotoma lepida 

Notiosorex crawfordi 



Western mastiff bat 
Townsend's big-eared bat 



Eumops perotis 
Corynorhinus townsendii 



51 



QBKanBn^aaBi^KJEaayaEaaHaa 



APPENDIX A 
Page 4 



Common Loon 
Artie Loon 
Horned Grebe 
Eared Grebe 
Western Grebe 
Pied-billed Grebe 
White Pelican 
*Brown Pelican 
Double-crested Cormorant 
Great Blue Heron 
Green Heron 
Common Egret 
Snowy Egret 

Black-crowned Night Heron 
Least Bittern 
American Bittern 
Wood Ibis 
White-faced Ibis 
Whistling Swan 
Canada Goose 
White-fronted Goose 
Snow Goose 
Blue Goose 
Ross' Goose 
Fulvous Tree Duck 
Mallard 
Gadwall 
Pintail 

Green-winged Teal 
Blue-winged Teal 
Cinnamon Teal 
European Widgeon 
American Widgeon 
Shoveler 
Wood Duck 
Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 
Canvasback 
Lesser Scaup 
Common Goldeneye 
Bufflehead 
Oldsquaw 
Ruddy Duck 
Hooded Merganser 
Common Merganser 
Red-breasted Merganser 
Turkey Vulture 
Sharp-shinned Hawk 
Cooper's Hawk 



BIRDS 



Red-tailed Hawk 

Swainson's Hawk 

Zone- tailed Hawk 

Rough-legged Hawk 

Ferruginous Hawk 

Harris ' Hawk 

Golden Eagle 
*Bald Eagle 

Marsh Hawk 

Osprey 

Prairie Falcon 
*Peregrine Falcon 

Pigeon Hawk 

Sparrow Hawk 

Gambel's Quail 

Sandhill Crane 
* Yuma Clapper Rail 

Virginia Rail 

Sora 

Common Gallinule 

American Coot 

Semipalmated Plover 

Snowy Plover 

Killdeer 

Mountain Plover 

Black-bellied Plover 

Common Snipe 

Long-billed Curlew 

Whimbrel 

Spotted Sandpiper 

Solitary Sandpiper 

Willet 

Greater Yellowlegs 

Lesser Yellowlegs 

Pectoral Sandpiper 

Baird's Sandpiper 

Least Sandpiper 

Dunlin 

Long-billed Dowitcher 

Western Sandpiper 

Marbled Godwit 

Sanderling 

American Avocet 

Black-necked Stilt 

Red Phalarope 

Wilson's Phalarope 

Parasitic Jaeger 

Herring Gull 

California Gull 



*Listed in May 1974 edition of "United States List of Endangered Fauna." 



52 



BIRDS 



APPENDIX 
Page 5 



Ring-billed Gull 
Franklin's Gull 
Bonaparte's Gull 
Sabine's Gull 
Forster's Tern 
Common Tern 
Caspian Tern 
Black Tern 
Mourning Dove 
White-winged Dove 
Ground Dove 
Yellow-billed Cuckoo 
Roadrunner 
Barn Owl 
Screech Owl 
Great Horned Owl 
Long-eared Owl 
Short-eared Owl 
Poor-will 
Lesser Nighthawk 
Vaux's Swift 
White-throated Swift 
Black-chinned Hummingbird 
Costa's Hummingbird 
Rufous Hummingbird 
Belted Kingfisher 
Red-shafted Flicker 
Gilded Flicker 
Gila Woodpecker 
Acorn Woodpecker 
Lewis' Woodpecker 
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 
Williamson's Sapsucker 
Ladder-backed Woodpecker 
Tropical Kingbird 
Western Kingbird 
Cassin's Kingbird 
Wied's Crested Flycatcher 
Ash-throated Flycatcher 
Eastern Phoebe 
Black Phoebe 
Say's Phoebe 
Traill's Flycatcher 
Hammond's Flycatcher 
Gray Flycatcher 
Western Flycatcher 
Western Wood Pewee 
Olive-sided Flycatcher 
Vermilion Flycatcher 
Horned Lark 



Violet-Green Swallow 

Tree Swallow 

Bank Swallow 

Rough-winged Swallow 

Barn Swallow 

Cliff Swallow 

Purple Martin 

Steller|s Jay 

Scrub Jay 

Common Raven 

Piny on Jay 

Verdin 

Bushtit 

White-breasted Nuthatch 

Red-breasted Nuthatch 

Brown Creeper 

House Wren 

Bewick's Wren 

Cactus Wren 

Long-billed Marsh Wren 

Canyon Wren 

Rock Wren 

Mockingbird 

Bendire's Thrasher 

Crissal Thrasher 

Sage Thrasher 

Robin 

Hermit Thrush 

Swainson's Thrush 

Western Bluebird 

Mountain Bluebird 

Townsend's Solitaire 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 

Black-tailed Snatcatcher 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

Water Pipit 

Cedar Waxwing 

Phainopepla 

Loggerhead Shrike 

Starling 

Hutton's Vireo 

Bell's Vireo 

Gray Vireo 

Yellow-throated Vireo 

Solitary Vireo 

Warbling Vireo 

Black-and-white Warbler 

Blue-winged Warbler 

Orange- crowned Warbler 

Nashville Warbler 



53 



APPENDIX 
Page 6 



BIRDS 



Lucy's Warbler 

Yellow Warbler 

Virginia Warbler 

Magnolia Warbler 

Myrtle Warbler 

Audubon's Warbler 

Black- throated Gray Warbler 

Townsend's Warbler 

Black-throated Green Warbler 

Hermit Warbler 

Northern Waterthrush 

MacGillivray's Warbler 

Yellowthroat 

Yellow-breasted Chat 

Wilson's Warbler 

American Redstart 

House Sparrow 

Western Meadowlark 

Yellow-headed Blackbird 

Red-winged Blackbird 

Hooded Oriole 

Scott's Oriole 

Bullock's Oriole 

Rusty Blackbird 

Brewer's Blackbird 

Brtswn-headed Cowbird 

Western Tanager 

Summer Tanager 

Cardinal 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak 

Black-headed Grosbeak 

Blue Grosbeak 
Lazuli Bunting 
Varied Bunting 
Dickcissel 
Purple Finch 
House Finch 
Pine Siskin 
American Goldfinch 
Lesser Goldfinch 
Lawrence's Goldfinch 
Green-tailed Towhee 
Rufous-sided Towhee 
Abert ' s Towhee 
Lark Bunting 
Savannah Sparrow 
Grasshopper Sparrow 
Vesper Sparrow 



Lark Sparrow 
Black-throated Sparrow 
Sage Sparrow 
Slate-colored Junco 
Oregon Junco 
Gray-headed Junco 
Chipping Sparrow 
Brewer's Sparrow 
Black- chinned Sparrow 
White-crowned Sparrow 
Golden-crowned Sparrow 
Fox Sparrow 
Lincoln's Sparrow 
Swamp Sparrow 
Song Sparrow 
Chestnut-collared Longspur 



54 



APPENDIX A 
Page 7 



REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 



Couch's spade-footed toad 
Colorado river toad 



Scaphiopus couchi 
Bufo alvarius 



Bullfrog 
Leopard frog 

Desert tortoise 

Spiney soft-shelled turtle 

Gila monster 
Banded gecko 
Desert iguana 

Leopard lizard 
Collared lizard 
Zebra-tailed lizard 
Long-tailed brush lizard 
Tree lizard 
Side-blotched lizard 
Desert horned lizard 

Chuckwalla 

Western blind snake 
Checkered garter snake 
Whipsnake (Coachwhip) 
Desert patch-nosed snake 
Bullsnake 
Glossy snake 
Long-nosed snake 
Common king snake 
Spotted leaf-nosed snake 
Western shovel-nosed snake 

S.W. Lyre snake 

Night snake 
Arizona coral snake 

Western diamondback 
Black-tailed rattlesnake 
Mojave rattlesnake 
Sidewinder 



Rana catesbeiana 
Rana pipiens 

Gopherus agassizi 
Trionyx spiniferus 

Heloderma suspectum 
Cole onyx variegatus 
Dipsosaurus dorsalis 

Crotaphytus wislizenii 
Crotaphytus collaris 
Callisaurus draconoides 
Urosaurus graciousus 
Urosaurus ornatus 
Uta stansburiana 
Phrynosoma platyrhinos 

Sauromalus obesus 

Leptotyphlops humilis 
Thamnophis marcianus 
Masticophis f lagellum 
Salvadora hexalepis 
Pituophis melanoleucus sayi 
Arizona elegans 
Rhinocheilus lecontei 
Lampropeltis getulus 
Phyllorhynchus decurtatus 
Chionactis occipitalis 

Trimorphodon lyrophanes 

Hypsiglena torguata 
Micruroides euryxanthus 

Crotalus atrox 
Crotalus molossus 
Crotalus scutulatus 
Crotalus cerastes 



55 



8469 



APPENDIX B 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

(Serial No. A 6930] 

ARIZONA 

Notice of Proposed Classification of 
Public Lands for Transfer Out of 
Federal Ownership ' 

1. Pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act 
Of June 23, 1934 (43 Stat. 1275. as 
amended, 43 U.S.C. 315) , and the regula- 
tions in 43 CFR Part 2462, it is proposed 
to classify the public lands described be- 
low for transfer out of Federal owner- 
ship by exchange. The transfers would 
be accomplished under authority of sec- 
tion 8 of the Taylor Grazing Act. 

2. Publication of this .notice has the 
effect of segregating the described lands 
from all forms of appropriation under 
the public land laws, including the min- 
ing and mineral leasing laws, except that 
these lands will remain open to filing of 

— State exchange applications. If and when 

- these lands are classified for exchange. 

'applications for private exchange mav be 

filed in accordance with the regulations 

in 43 CFR Part 2202. 

_ 3. The public lands proposed for clas- 
sification in this notice are located in the 
vicinity of the Planet Ranch on the Bill 
Williams River in Mohave and Yuma 
Counties. These public lands have po- 
; tential for residential development in 
' conjunction with planned developments 
.' on private lands at the Planet Ranch 
j The transfer of these public lands cut of 

• Federal ownership by exchange will en- 
able the United States to acquire State 
and private lands elsewhere along- the 
Bill Williams River Valley and in the 
surrounding desert mountains, to help 
block up and preserve Federal land man- 
agement areas with significant wildlife. 
recreation, and primitive values. 

4. The public lands proposed for clas- 

* sification in this notice are shown on 
maps on file and available for inspection 

. in the Phoenix District Office. Bureau of 

Land Management. 2029 West Clarendon 

. Avenue, Phoenix. AZ 33017: the Kingman 

■ Office, Kingman. Ariz. $6401: and the 

State Office, 3022 Federal Building 

Phoenix, Ariz. S5025. 

5. The lands involved are located in 
Mohave and Yuma Counties and are 
described as follows: 



• Oiuims SaztRivts Meridian 
T. llH, K. 18 W.. 

Sec. 1, lots 3 and 4, S^NW'4, and SWVi: 

8ec3, SW>/ 4 ; 

Sec 3, lota 1 to 4, inclusive. S14N>4, and 

8V4: 
Sec 8. lots 1 to 4, Inclusive, S^N'/z, and 

• S'/,; 

Sec 6, lots 1 to 7, Inclusive, EE'4NW'4, 

6&NE'/4. E'/ 2 SW>,4. and SE'$: 
Sec. 7, lots 1 to 4, Inclusive, E'/jWi'i, and 

Sec. 9: 

Sec. 11; 

Sec. 12, W",; 

Sec. 13, W >4; 

Sec. 15; 

Sec. 16, N'/ 3 , NJ4SWJ4, SWi/iSWM, and 
6Et/ 4 ;. 

Sec. 17; 

Sec. 19. lots 1 to 4. Inclusive, E'/,W'/,. and 
£';; 

Sec. 23: 

Sec. 24, \V\' 2 ; 

Sec. 25, NW!4.KWftSW>4, and SWftIXE>i: 

Sec. 27,N!;N!'ji and 

Sec. 23. N-ivi ; and WUMS&, 
T. 13 jr., R. 17 \Y 

Sec. 34. NZ'iNE';; and 

Sec. 3G. SEKJTE'4. 
T. ION.. R. ic'\v., 

See.S.N'sNK; 

Sec. 4. l\'; JN'-;: 

Sec. 5. lot 1, N';NEi',, and KB'iNWti: and 

Sec. 6, lot 1. 

The lands described aggregate approx- 
imately 9,646.37 acres 'of public land.' 

6. For a period of 60 days from date 
of publication of this notice in the Fed- 
eral Register, all persons who wish to 
subnut comments, suggestions, or objec- 
tions in connection with' the proposed 
classification may present their views to 
the State Director. Bureau of Land Man- 
agement. 3022 Federal Building, Phoenix 
Ariz. 85025. 

Joe T. Fallin-t, 

State Director. 
April 21, 1972. 

[FR Doc.72-6413 Filed 4-26-72;S:48 ami 



FEDER AL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 82—THURSDAY, APRIL 27, W2 



56 



APPENDIX C 



LAW OFFICES 



FRANCIS J. RYLEY 
GEORGE READ CARLOCK 
JOSEPH P. RALSTON 
SAM P. APPLEWHITE, ID 
JOHN. C. ELLINWOOD. 
FRANK C. BROPHY, JR. 
WILLIAM F. WILDER 
ROBERT E.GUZIK 
W JOHN LISCHER 
RAYMOND M. HUNTER 
JAM ES D- O'NEIL 



Ryley, Carlock & Ralston 

114 WEST ADAMS STREET 
PHOENIX. ARIZONA SSOQ3 



July 21, 1972_ 



Arizona State Office • 
Bureau of Land Management 
Department of the Interior 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Attention: Mr. Myron H. Allen 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. IAKO MANAGEMENT 



JUL 2 4 72- 



so 



AREA CODE 602 
TELEPHONE 25S-770I 



SUN CITY OFFICE 

PLAZA DEL SOL WEST 

10771 WEST PEORIA AVENUE 

S33- 5972 



ASSOC! SO 


4»CS / ' "" " 


RESOURCES 
TECH SER " 






MGWT SE* 


PUB. AFF 


O "~ """ 


ACTION 


IKFO. 


«^-™_~___ 


PEG ME 

— — 



Re: Proposed Classification - A-6930 



Gentlemen: 



In connection with the 102 Environmental Impact 
Statement being made by your office as part of the above 
proposed classification of proceedings, reference is made - 
to your request for information regarding the involvement 
of the waters of the Bill Williams River in the interstate 
apportionment of Colorado River water. 

Waters of the tributaries to the Colorado River 
located in Arizona are not subject to. apportionment as 
interstate waters by the Secretary of the Interior. Con-- 
gress, in the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1920 apportioned 
mainstream' water between various states and in the process 
declared, its intent to exclude such waters from the appor- 
tionment. This intent has been confirmed by the United 
States Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v. California , 
373 U.S. 546 (1963) . The Court explicitly found that under 
the Boulder Canyon Project Act, the lower basin states have 
the right to regulate "the use of such tributary water" in 
a manner and for purposes not otherwise inconsistent with 
the Project Act or with Federal control 'of the Colorado 
River . 

Accordingly, the use of waters of the Bill 
Williams River by appropriators along the stream and its 
tributaries are subject to regulation by the State of 
Arizona and are not a part of any apportionment of Colorado 
River waters under either interstate compact or Congress. 



57 



Arizona State Office 
Bureau of Land Management 



July 21, 1972 
Page 2 



Arizona governs the use of such waters by the doctrine of 
prior appropriation and a filing procedure which provides 
for notice to present vested water right holders and a 
hearing prior to issuance of a certificate formally recog- 
nizing a newly acquired right. 

.Yours very truly, 

- RYLEY, CARLOCK & RALSTON 




By I / ^C^L^Lf 

Frank C. Brophy , Jr 



FCB:lv • 

cc : Mr. Walter G. Smith 




58. 



APPENDIX D 
Page 1 



List of References 



1- Vegetation and Flora of the Sonoran Desert . Forrest Shreve and Ira L. 
Wiggins: Standord University Press - 1964. 

2- Water Resources of the Planet Ranch on Bill Williams River, Mohave 
and Yuma Counties, Arizona, Samuel F. Turner, Phoenix, Arizona, 
August 1962; Updated October 13, 1971. 

3. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters in Arizona 

4. The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan, 
May 1972 (Revision No. 1). Prepared by Arizona State Department of 
Health, Division of Air Pollution Control, for Environmental Protec- 
tion Agency. 

5. Recreational Uses of the Lower Colorado River Valley: University of 
Southern California Research Institute for Business & Economics, 1969 

6. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, National Recreation 
Survey , Report #19: U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1962 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Participation in 
Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults , 
Report #20 : U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1962 

Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission, Prospective Demand for 
Outdoor Recreation, Report #26 : U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1962 

7. State of Arizona Arizona Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 
Plan, 1973 , Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Committee. 

8. Kearny, T. H. , and R. H. Peebles, Arizona Flora . 1960. University of 
California Press, Berkeley. 

9. Lowe, C. H. (ed.). 1964. The Vertebrates of Arizona . University of 
Arizona Press, Tucson. 

10. Phillips, A. R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964. Birds of Arizona . 
University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

11. Hall, E. Raymond and Kelson, Keith R. , Mammals of North America 
(2 vol.): Ronald Press Co., New York, 1959. 

12. E. Lendell Cockrum, The Recent Mammals of Arizona; Their Taxonomy 
and Distribution : The University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1960. 

13. United States List of Endangered Fauna , U.S. Department of the Interior, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, May 1974. 



59 



APPENDIX D 
Page 2 

14. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places : 
Federal Register, January 29, 1972, as amended to date. 

15. Albert C. Martin & Associates, Planet Ranch Development Master Plan 
Report No. 2, October 1970. 

16. California Region Framework Study Committee, Comprehensive Framework 
Study , California Region. 

17. Lower Colorado Region, Comprehensive Framework Study , June 1970. 

18. The California State Office BLM and Western Regional Office National 
Park Service, The California Desert , September 1960. 

19. Joseph E. Williams, ed. , Sunset , Western Garden Book, 3rd Ed., 1967. 

20. Geological Survey Professional Paper 486-B, Precipitation, Runoff and 
Water Loss in the Lower Colorado River - Salton Sea Area . 

21. Mohave County Arizona Planning Ordinance, Modified July 1968, by 
Mohave County Planning Director Herb Voigt. 

22. Reference Material on Planning Philosophies, Techniques and Procedures, 
by Simon Eisner, A. I. P., A.S.C.P., prepared for U.S. Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. 

23. Model Cities Bill, Chapter 43, Senate Bill 8, passed by 29th Legis- 
lature, 1970. 

24. Southwest Energy Study An Evaluation of Coal-Fired Electric Power 
Generation in the Southwest (Draft) April 1972. 

Southwest Energy Study Report of the Meteorology Work Group , Appendix E, 
March 1972. 

25. A Park, Recreation & Open Space Study, Maricopa County, Arizona, pre- 
pared by Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Department, September 1970. 

26. The Park & Recreation Plan, Phoenix, Arizona, prepared by the City 
of Phoenix Planning Commission, June 1969. 

27. New Towns: Policy Problems in Regulating Development . Institute of 
Public Administration, by John C. Gliege, Arizona State University, 
Tempe, Arizona, 1970. 

28. Lower Colorado River Cooperative Planning Area Special Economic Supple- 
ment , December 1971. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM California 
and Arizona, by Edward Frandsen, Gene Herrin, William Collins, James 
Fox, and Alan Dicker son. 



60 



APPENDIX 
Page 3 



29. 1985 Comprehensive County Plan, Yuma County, Arizona, Land Use 
Report 1967, by Jeffrey Holland, AMTPI, MCP, Assoc. AIP 

30. Yuma County Arizona Comprehensive Plan (Development Policy Report) 
1970, prepared by Yuma County Planning Department, James E. Stone, 
Director. 

31. Arizona Statistical Review. , 27th Annual Edition, September 1971, 
Valley National Bank 

32. Planning and Development Districts and Socio-Economic Projects for 
the State of Arizona, Planning Division, Department of Economic 
Planning and Development (June 1970) State of Arizona. 

33. Arizona Preliminary State Development Plan, prepared by the State 
of Arizona for the Four Corners Regional Commission under a tech- 
nical services contract. Jack Williams, Governor; Stanley Womer, 
Alternate to Governor for the Commission; Ralph L. Perk, Project 
Director; Ernest J. Workman, Research Assistant. March 1969. 

34. Mohave County, Arizona Subdivision Regulations, being a part of the 
Mohave County Planning and Zoning Ordinance. 1970. 



61 



APPENDIX E 



Comments on Planet Townsite Draft Environmental Statement requested 



from 



Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. 
Division Engineer, South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers, 

Department of the Army, San Francisco, California 
District Engineer, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, 

Department of the Army, Los Angeles, California 
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Phoenix, Arizona 
Dr. T. C. Byerly, Office of the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, D. C. 

State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agri- 
culture, Phoenix, Arizona 

U. S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service 

Phoenix, Arizona 
Dr. S. R. Galler, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, 

Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. 
Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, D. C. 
Director of Impact Statements Office, Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D. C. 
Regional Director, Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency, 

San Francisco, California 
Asst. Secretary for Health & Science Affairs, Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. 
Mr. Charles Orlebeke, Deputy Under Secretary, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Washington, D. C. 
Regional Administrator, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

San Francisco, California 
Mr. H. F. DeSimone, Asst. Secretary for Environment, Department of 

Transportation, Washington, D. C. 
Division Engineer, Arizona Division, Federal Highway Administration, 

Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. James Elliott, Officer in Charge, United States Coast Guard, 

Parker Dam, California 
Mr. Jack 0. Horton, Deputy Asst. Secretary for Programs, Department 

of the Interior, Washington, D. C. 
Mr. Webster Otis, Secretary's Field Representative, Department of the 

Interior, San Francisco, California 
Mr. Hardy Pearce, Environmental Review Officer, Secretary's Field Office, 

Department of the Interior, San Francisco, California 
Mr. George W. Webber, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Bureau of 

Outdoor Recreation, San Francisco, California 
Mr. Ed Bullard, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, National Park 

Service, San Francisco, California 
Mr. J. Bruce Kimsey, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Sacramento, California 
Mr. F. Phillip Sharpe, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Bureau of 
Reclamation, Boulder City, Nevada. 



62 



EXHIBIT E 
Page 2 

Mr. George Robinson, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Geological 

Survey, Menlo Park, California 
Mr. James Crowther, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Homer C. Stewart, Member, Secretary's Field Committee, Bureau of 

Mines, Denver, Colorado 
Geological Survey, Washington, D. C. 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C. 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Area Office, Phoenix, Arizona 
Superintendent, Colorado River Indian Agency, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Parker, Arizona 
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Parker, Arizona 
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D. C. 
Bureau of Mines, Liaison Office, Phoenix, Arizona 
National Park Service, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
State Director, Arizona State Office, National Park Service, USDI, 

Phoenix, Arizona 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
Regional Director, Pacific SW Region, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 

San Francisco, California 
Bureau of Reclamation, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
Regional Director, Lower Colorado Regional Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Boulder City, Nevada 
Project Manager, Arizona Projects Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Phoenix, Arizona 
Project Manager, Parker-Davis Project, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, 

Arizona 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico 
Mr. Wm. Rightmire, Acting State Supervisor, Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife, Phoenix, Arizona 
Office of River Basin Studies, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 

Phoenix, Arizona 
Chief, Office of Public Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, USDI, 

Washington, D. C. 
Director, Bureau of Land Management, USDI, Washington, D. C. 
Director, Denver Service Center, Bureau of Land Management, USDI, 

Denver, Colorado 
District Manager, Phoenix District, Bureau of Land Management, USDI, 

Phoenix, Arizona 
Kingman Resource Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Kingman, Arizona 
District Manager, Yuma District, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma, Arizona 
State Director, Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, 

Nevada 
State Director, California State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

Sacramento, California 
District Manager, Riverside District, Bureau of Land Management, 

Riverside, California 



63 



APPENDIX E 
Page 3 

Mr. John Lovell, Missoula District Office, Bureau of Land Management, 

Missoula, Montana 
Mr. John Radosta, Salem District, Bureau of Land Management, Salem, Oregon 
Mr. Ben Avery, Member State Advisory Board for BLM, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Andrew Bettwy, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Henry H. Haws, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Ted Lee, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Thatcher, Arizona 
Mr. John J. Levy, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Tucson, Arizona 
Mr. Howard A. Twitty, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. David B. Thorud, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Tucson, Arizona 
Mr. Tom Wardell, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Desmond Wood, Member, State Advisory Board for BLM, Buckeye, Arizona 
Mr. Arthur L. Arnold, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Buckeye, 

Arizona 
Mr. Jack Clem, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Chandler, Arizona 
Mr. Chester C. Cofer, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Kingman, 

Arizona 

Mr. J. J. Coughlin, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Prescott, 
Arizona 

Mr. Fermin Echeverria, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Phoenix, 
Arizona 

Mr. E. Laurence Narramore, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, 

Palo Verde, Arizona 
Mr. John J. Odle, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Kingman, Arizona 
Mr. Dale D. Smith, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Chandler, 

Arizona 

Mr. N. Boyd Tenney, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Prescott, 

Arizona 
Mr. Jack Wilson, Member, Phoenix District Advisory Board, Wikieup, Arizona 
Mr. J. Leonard Neal, Member, Phoenix District ..Advisory Board, Kingman, 

Arizona 
Hon. Barry Goldwater, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Hon. Paul J. Fannin, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
Hon. John B. Conlan, United States House of Representatives, Washington,D.C. 
Hon. John J. Rhodes, " " " 

Hon. Sam Steiger, " " » 

Hon. Morris K. Udall," " » 

Office of Hon. Harold Giss, Arizona State Senate, District 5, Phoenix, Arizona 
Hon. Boyd Tenney, Arizona State Senate, District 1, State Capitol, " " 
Arizona State Clearinghouse, Phoenix, Arizona 
Advisory Commission on Arizona Environment, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona State Land Department, Phoenix, Arizona 

Department of Library and Archives, State of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona State Bureau of Mines, Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona State Parks, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Water Commission, Phoenix, Arizona 

Chief, Budget Division, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Carson City, Nevada 
Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, State of Nevada, Carson 

City, Nevada 

64 



APPENDIX E 
Page k 

Nevada Department of Fish and Game, Reno, Nevada 

Metropolitan Area & Clearinghouse, Clark County Regional Planning 

Council, Las Vegas, Nevada 
Office of the Lieutenant Governor (California State Clearinghouse) , 

Sacramento, California 
Mr. Norman B. Livermore, Jr., Secretary for Resources, State of 

California, Sacramento, California 
State Land Commission, State of California, Los Angeles, California 
California Fish and Game Commission, Sacramento, Calffornia 
Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, California 
Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix, Arizona 
Pima Association of Governments, Tucson, Arizona 
Board of Supervisors, Mohave County, Kingman, Arizona 
Board of Supervisors, Yuma County, Yuma, Arizona 

Mr. Robert Baldwin, Planning Director, Yuma County, Yuma, Arizona 
Town Council, Town of Parker, Arizona 
Town Council, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 

American Association of University Women, Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, Buckeye, Arizona 
Arizona Cattle Growers Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Conservation Council, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Consulting Engineers Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Council of Engineering & Scientific Associations, Tucson 

Region Committee , Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Ecology Club, Tucson, Arizona 

Arizona Environmental Education Council, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Federation of Garden Clubs, Inc., Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona Hotel & Motel Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Mining Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Parks & Recreation Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Roadside Council, Sun City, Arizona 
Arizona Society of Professional Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucson, Arizona 

Arizona State University Students Ecology Association, Tempe, Arizona 
Arizona Wildlife Federation, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Zoological Society, Phoenix, Arizona 

Arizonans in Defense of the Environment, Inc., Tempe, Arizona 
Audubon Society, Tucson, Arizona 

Mrs. Alice Schultz, Representative Audubon Society, Phoenix, Arizona 
AWW Inc. (Arizonans for Quality Environment), Tucson, Arizona 
California Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sacramento, California 
Central Arizona Project Association, Phoenix, Arizona 
Coalition of Arizona Students for the Environment, Tucson, Arizona 
Committee on the Population Explosion, Grand Canyon, Arizona 
Community Planning Coalition, Tucson, Arizona 
Environmental Conscience, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona 
Good Earth, Tucson, Arizona 



65 



APPENDIX E 
Page 5 



Kingman Soil Conservation Service District, Kingman, Arizona 

Lake Havasu Gem & Mineral Society, Lake Havasu City, Arizona 

League of Arizona Cities and Towns, Phoenix, Arizona 

Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona 

National Wildlife Federation, Mr. N. A. Winter,, Phoenix, Arizona 

Nature Conservancy, Tucson, Arizona 

Nevada Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sparks, Nevada 

Sierra Club Wilderness Office, San Francisco, California 

Sierra Club, Southwest Office, Tucson, Arizona 

Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, Tucson, Arizona 

Southern Arizona Environmental Council, Tucson, Arizona 

University of Arizona Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society, Tucson, 

Arizona 
University of Southern California Law Center Library, Los Angeles, 

California 
Valley Forward Association, Phoenix, Arizona 

Wickenburg Natural Resources Conservation District, Wickenburg, Arizona 
Western Rockhound Association, Inc. (Mr. Herman Sharp, 1st Vice Pres.) 

Apache Junction, Arizona 
Zero Population Growth, Inc., Glendale, Arizona 
Dr. Robert Omart, Department of Zoology, Arizona State University, 

Tempe, Arizona 
Dr. Robert Durrenberger, Department of Geography, Arizona State 

University, Tempe, Arizona 
Reference Division, Phoenix Public Library, Phoenix, Arizona 
The Wilderness Society, Washington, D. C. 
Mr. James W. Allan, Tucson, Arizona 
Arizona Public Service Company, Phoenix, Arizona 
Arizona Ranch & Metals Co., Scottsdale, Arizona 
Mr. Frank Brophy, Attorney for Arizona Ranch & Metals Co., Phoenix, 

Arizona 
Mr. John Lynch, Big Valley Land Co., Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Donald C. Bulmer, Geologist, Tucson, Arizona 
Burke, Hansen and Homan, Appraisers, Phoenix, Arizona 
A. H. Carpenter, El Paso, Texas 
H. Paul Friesema, Associate Professor, Public Land Project, Northwestern 

University, Evans ton, Illinois 
Page Land & Cattle Co., Phoenix, Arizona 
Lake Havasu Land Co., Phoenix, Arizona 
McCulloch Properties, Inc., Los Angeles, California 
Olympic Realty & Investment Co., Phoenix, Arizona 
R. W. Pearson, Phoenix, Arizona 
Ms. Nina Pollitt, Washington, D. C. 

Land Commissioner, Santa Fe Railroad Company, Los Angeles, California 
Southern Pacific Company, San Francisco, California 
Les Ringenberg, Principal Planner, Advance Planning Division, 

Maricopa County, Arizona 
Jerzy Zaborski, Urban America Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona 
Robert S. Lynch, Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona 

66 



APPENDIX 
Page 6 



Mr. Dennis Erhart, Planning Coordination Staff, New Mexico State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico 
PACE Engineering, Inc. , Phoenix, Arizona 

Mr. John Stansel, Toups Engineering Company, Phoenix, Arizona 
Mr. Harry Berg, Land Specialist, Phoenix, Arizona 
Dr. Reed Wagstaff, Department of Geography, Arizona State University, 

Tempe, Arizona 
Mr. F. J. MacDonald, F. J. MacDonald & Associates (Member, Governor's 

Commission on Arizona's Environment), Scottsdale, Arizona 



67 



APPENDIX F 



Copies of Comments Received and BLM Responses Thereon 

Index 
Federal Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service 

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

House of Representatives, Hon. Morris K. Udall, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on the Environment, Committee on Interior 

and Insular Affairs 
Department of Housing and Urban Development Area Office 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal 

Housing Administration 
Department of the Interior: 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Geological Survey 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Bureau of Land Management, California State Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office 

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 
comments omitted from Final Environmental Statement 

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, 
comments omitted from Final Environmental Statement 

Bureau of Mines 

Bureau of Mines, Intermountain Field Operations Center 

National Park Service 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation 

Bureau of Reclamation 
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Adminis- 
tration, Region Nine 



Page 

70 
73 
76 
79 
83 



85 
91 

95 

97 
105 
108 
110 
112 

114 

115 

117 
119 
121 
124 
137 

147 



Arizona State Agencies 

Arizona State Senate, Stan Turley, President Pro Tempore 
Hon. Jack Williams, Governor of the State of Arizona to 

Hon. Stan Turley, President Pro Tempore, Arizona State 

Senate 
Arizona State Clearinghouse (Department of Economic 

Planning and Development) 

Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Department of Health 

Arizona Power Authority 

Arizona Water Commission 

Real Estate Department 

Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission 

Department of Economic Planning and Development 



150 



156 

161 
163 
166 
169 
171 
174 
175 
177 (cont'd) 



68 



/ 



APPENDIX F 
Page 2 



Arizona State (cont'd) 

house (cont'd) 



Arizona State Clearinghouse (cont'd) Pag e 



State Land Department 

Office of Economic Planning and Development 187 

" " " " 188 

Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture 195 

Arizona Game & Fish Department 202 

State Land Department 207 

Department of Mineral Resources 209 

Arizona State Parks 211 

" " " 213 

Arizona Highway Department 
Other States 

The Resources Agency of California 216 

Department of Water Resources 219 

Local Government 

Mohave County Board of Supervisors 220 

Organized Public Groups 

Arizona Conservation Council 223 

Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, Inc. 228 

Arizona Wildlife Federation 230 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 235 

Sierra Club 237 

Tucson Audubon Society 24Q 

The Wildlife Society 243 

Individuals 

Frank C. Brophy, Attorney, Law Offices of Ryley, Carlock 
& Ralston, on behalf of applicant Arizona Ranch and Metals 

Co . (AR&M ) (Comments on review of Draft EIS) 248 

" (w/Arizona Highway Department Traffic Volume 270 

Forecast related to proposed townsite) 

Dick Capra 274 

William D. Lawrence, M.D. 276 

Tracy Stair 278 



69 



ADVISORY COUNCIL 

ON 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



August 1, 1!73 AuG 13 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
OU. LAMD MANAGEMENT 



ASCOC. SD 


" 


PCS / 


RESOURCES 


Ic'.'HIitH 


MGM'T S£f( 


PUB. AFF 


O 


ACTION 


INFO. 




SEE M" 



Dear Mr. Fallini: 

This is in response to your request for comments on the environmental 
statement for the proposed Planet Townsite in Mohave County, Arizona. 
Pursuant to its responsibilities under Section 102 (2) (C) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation has determined that your draft environmental statement is 
inadequate regarding our area of expertise as it does not contain 
sufficient information to enable the Council to comment substantively. 
Please furnish additional data indicating: 

a. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470(f)). The 
Council must have evidence that the most recent 
listing of the National Register of Historic Places 
has been consulted (see Federal Register , February 28, 
1973, and monthly supplements each first Tuesday 
thereafter) and that either of the following conditions 
is satisfied: 

1. If no National Register property is affected by the 
project, a section detailing this determination 
must appear in the environmental statement. 

2. If a National Register property is affected by the 
project, the environmental statement must contain 
an account of steps taken in compliance with 
Section 106 and a comprehensive discussion of the 
contemplated effects on the National Register 
property. (Procedures for compliance with Section 
106 are detailed in the Federal Register of 
November 14, 1972, pp. 24146-24148). 

b. Compliance with Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971 . 



the COUNCIL, an independent agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, is charged by the Act of October IS. 1966. with 
advising the President and Congress in the field of Historic Preservation, commenting on Federal, federally assisted, and federally licensed 
undertakings having an effect upon properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, recommending measures to coordinate 
governmental with private activities, advising on the dissemination of information, encouraging public interest and participation, recom- 
mending the conduct of special studies, advising in the preparation of legislation, and encouraging specialized training and education, and 
guiding the United States membership in the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property 
in Rome, Italy. 

70 



1. In the case of land under the control or jurisdiction 
of the Federal Government, a statement should be made 
as to whether or not the proposed undertaking will 
result in the transfer, sale, demolition, or 
substantial alteration of potential National Register 
properties, such as the archeological sites to which 
reference is made on pages 26-27 of the draft 
environmental statement. If such is the case, the 
nature of the effect should be clearly indicated. 

2. In the case of lands not under the control or juris- 
diction of the Federal Government, a statement should 
be made as to whether or not the proposed, undertaking 
will contribute to the preservation and enhancement of 
non-federally owned districts, sites, buildings, 
structures, and objects of historical, archeological, 
architectural, or cultural significance. 

To insure a comprehensive review of historical, cultural, archeological, 
and architectural resources, the Advisory Council suggests that the 
environmental statement contain evidence of contact with the appropriate 
State Historic Preservation Officer and that a copy of his comments 
concerning the effects of the undertaking upon these resources be included 
in the environmental statement. The State Historic Preservation Officer 
for Arizona is Mr. Dennis McCarthy, Director, Arizona State Parks, 1688 
West Adam, Phoenix, Arizona 85007. 

Should you have any questions on these comments or require any additional 
assistance, please contact Robert Gamble of the Advisory Council staff. 




>4«A^> 



Sincerely yours. 



Ken Ta^foarM^v^'/" 

Compliancy Officer 



71 



Response to Comments 
by 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 



Comment: Additional data is needed concerning compliance 
with the National Historic Preservation Act of 
1966 and Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 19 71. 

Response: See letter from Arizona State Parks dated December 18, 
1973, and comments following that letter. 

The statement has been revised to reflect the fact 
that no National Register quality sites will be 
directly affected. One site (Swansea Townsite) is 
in the process of being nominated to the National 
Register of Historic Places. Although this site is 
outside of the proposed exchange, it will be indirectly 
affected and a 196/2b statement of effect will be 
prepared prior to a land exchange. 

The statement has also been revised to reflect the 
fact that an intensive cultural resource inventory 
of the Federal lands proposed for exchange was done 
in 1972 by Prescott College. 

A review of the National Register of Historic Places 
as well as Yuma and Phoenix District (.BLM) cultural 
resource inventory records reveal no sites of National 
Register significance (other than Swansea Townsite) 
on lands not under BLM control. The Swansea Townsite 
is on land offered in exchange for Federal lands. In 
this instance a possible National Register site will 
come under complete Federal ownership (the site is 
on both Federal and private land) . 



72 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 

6029 Federal Building, Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



May 9, 1973 



Mr. Joe Fallini 

State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

U. S. Department of Interior 

3022 Federal Building 

Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



Dear Mr. Fallini: 

The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Planet 
townsite in Mohave County, Arizona, was referred to the Soil Con- 
servation Service for review and comment. 

The statement is well written, but is based on several possibilities 
which are stated on page 2 as follows: 

"Preliminary plans for development include the following items; 
however, there is no guarantee that this is the kind of develop- 
ment that would occur if the proposed land exchanges are 
consummated. There is also a possibility that Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Company could sell their interest to other developers 
who could completely redesign the proposed town." 

Although some information is included on soils, floodplains and flood 
control needs, it will be necessary to study the final plans for the 
development before specific comments can be made. Individual site 
investigations will be necessary by the developer to determine if 
the soils are acceptable for septic tank systems. Review of detail 
plans will indicate if adequate provisions are made to control or 
protect the development from flooding. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this proposed 
project. 



Sincerely, 



L 



yS 



p^^^C 






73 



George C. Marks 
State Conservationist 



^ 



73 



6 



Response to Comments 

by 

Soil Conservation Service 
United States Department of Agriculture 



Comment :it will be necessary to study the final development plans 

before specific comments can be made regarding acceptability 
of soils for septic tanks and to determine if adequate 
provisions are included to control or protect the 
development from flooding. 

Response: Final plans for development have not been made and would not 
be until after the proposed exchanges are consummated. 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. has not done detailed planning 
regarding acceptability of soils for septic tanks. 



Information concerning septic tanks, their use and effects can 
be found in a study made by Drs. Winneberger and Klock, entitled 
"Current and Recommended Practices for Subsurface Waste Water 
Disposal Systems in Arizona," published in July of 1973 under 
the auspices of the Engineering Research Center, College of 
Engineering Sciences, Arizona State University. Most of the 
suggestions contained in that study with respect to the instal- 
lation and maintenance of septic tanks for subdivision develop- 
ments have been adopted in recent regulations promulgated by 

74 

ilH llilill IHifffTMHm—— Bream 



Soil Conservation Service, cont'd 

the State Health Department (exhibit K) . 

These regulations have imposed a more strict requirement 

than the Report in connection with permeability tests, 

calling for such a test on each lot where a septic tank 

is to be installed. Development will be in accordance with 

appropriate county, State, and Federal flood control regulations. 



75 




REPLY TO 
ATTENTION OF: 



DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

SOUTH PACIFIC DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

630 Sansome Street, Room 1216 
San Francisco, California 94111 



SPDPD-R 



28 June 1973 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



ABlSOriA STATE 0?-: IKS | 




Dear Sir: 

This is in response to your notice requesting Corps of Engineers 
review and comments on the draft environmental statement for the 
proposed Planet Townsite in Arizona. In accordance with our review 
procedures, this letter shall serve as the consolidated response 
of the District Engineer, Los Angeles, and the Division Engineer, 
South Pacific. 

The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized 
plans of the Corps of Engineers. Recognizing that such aspects 
are outside the Corps of Engineers area of responsibility, based 
upon experience with environmental statements for similar actions, 
we would like to make the following comments and suggestions: 

a. The discussion of impacts appears to be so general that 
an evaluation of the environmental benefits and detriments of the 
proposed action is difficult. 

b. It is acknowledged on the bottom of page 2 that once the 
proposed land exchanges are consummated, the development plan could 
significantly change, thereby possibly opening the door for an 
action that could be more environmentally adverse than that currently 
proposed and covered by this environmental statement. In view of 
this, it would appear appropriate for BLM to insure certain controls 
in making the land exchange, such as requiring that a second EIS be 
prepared if the ultimate plan differs significantly from that 
currently proposed. 



76 



HB 



SPDPD-R 28 June 1973 

State Director 

c. Information on historical sites should be included. 

d. Although the statement notes (on page 41) that there will 
be a significant impact upon water quality because of contamination 
of groundwaters, nothing is presented which would indicate what 
measures will be utilized to mitigate such circumstances. Mitigation 
measures should be discussed in the statement. 

e. A brief description of the proposed methods of sewage treat- 
ment should be included. Methods of sewage effluent disposal, 
together with any effects, whether beneficial or adverse, upon 
groundwater quality, should also be discussed. 

f. In view of the apparent adverse impacts on lands and 
resources outside the actual townsite, it would appear desirable 
to study and take measures appropriate to prevent or minimize such 
adverse impacts. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
environmental statement for this proposed action. 

Sincerely yours, 

fiT- DAVID N. HUTCHISON c "^ r 
yi* Colonel, CE 
/ Deputy Division Engineer 



77 



Response to Comments 

by 

South Pacific Division, Corps of Engineers 



Comment : 



Response: 



Comment : 
Response: 
Comment : 
Response: 
Comment : 
Response: 

Comment : 
Response: 



Discussion of impacts is too general and proposed 
plan of development could change. Suggest that if 
plans change significantly, BLM require a second EIS 
be prepared. 

Once lands pass from Federal ownership there is nothing 
BLM could do to regulate development even if a second 
EIS was prepared. As there would be no Federal 
action involved there would be no reason for preparation 
of a second EIS . 

Information on historical sites should be included. 

Text has been revised to include such information. 

Should list mitigation measures for impact on water quality, 

Mitigating measures are listed. 

Should describe methods of sewage treatment. 

Sewage treatment plans are discussed under the Description 
of the Proposal. Individual septic tank systems will 
be developed at each homesite. 

Should study and take measures necessary to prevent 
or minimize adverse impacts outside the townsite. 

The EIS indicates potential adverse impacts outside 
the townsite which may require additional Federal 
action if the townsite is developed (for example, 
closure of certain areas to off-road vehicles on 
Federal lands) . 



78 






\ 



"t PRCJI^ 



UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

TOO CALIFORNIA STREET 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 941 1 1 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 North First Avenue 
Phoenix AZ 85025 

Dear Sir: 



ARiro*!A st'.t: 

EU. U.K3 MA'."/ 



Jll\! 



i 



JUN 2 1 1973 



rs 




ASOuO. SD . 


tv, j^-' ' — 


re:- :uscts 


l.._.l s; r> 


MGM'l :".| i 




PUS. AFf 




Cl- 




AfifSrW 


tHv*>, 




etrr- ff- 



The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the 
draft environmental impact statement on the Planet Towns ite 
dated March 29, 1973. 

The Environmental Protection Agency believes that the 
draft statement does not contain sufficient information to 
assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed action. 
However, from the information submitted, the agency is able 
to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the 
environment and has reservations concerning the environmental 
aspects of the proposed action. Specific comments are en- 
closed. We have classified our comments as ER-2. This rating 
will be published in the Federal Register in accordance with 
our responsibility to inform the public of our views on pro- 
posed Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. 

Definitions of the categories are provided on the attach- 
ment. Our procedure is to categorize our comments on both the 
environmental consequences of the proposed action and the 
adequacy of the impact statement at the draft stage. 

If you have any questions concerning our categorization 
procedures, please let us know. 



ment. 



We would appreciate receiving a copy of your final state- 



Sincerely, 




P^ul De Fdlco," Jr. 
Regional Administrator 




Enclosures 



79 



-2- 
cc: Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC 



80 



Review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the proposed Planet Towns ite prepared by the Bureau of 
Land Management. 

The environmental effects of a new community on the Bill 
Williams River should be evaluated in the context of the 
ongoing and planned development of the surrounding area. 
Air quality in the Lower Colorado area will be affected by the 
continued development of Lake Havasu City, Parker and the 
Parker Strip, and the new development of the Chemehuevi 
Indian Reservation. Air quality in the Planet Townsite 
area may also be affected by the continuing development in 
the Fort Mohave-Bullhead City area. The statement should 
attempt to assess the probable air quality deterioration 
which will take place as the result of more new developments 
in the area, and whether or not this development will pose 
a threat to the maintenance of air quality standards. There 
should also be a discussion of the conformance of the Planet 
Townsite development with the State Air Implementation Plans 
being prepared by the States of Arizona, California and 
Nevada . 

The statement makes it clear that the plans for development 
of the Planet Townsite are preliminary and that there is 
no guarantee that the ultimate development will conform to 
these plans. Because of the significance of the measures 
planned to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the 
proposed development, the statement should consider the alter- 
native of placing environmental conditions on the land ex- 
change to ensure that maximum possible mitigation measures 
are incorporated into the new community. 



81 



Comment : 



Response to Comments 
by 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Impacts should be evaluated in context of ongoing and 
planned development in the surrounding area regarding 
air quality. 



Response: Text has been revised. 

Comment : Consider placing environmental conditions on the land 
exchange . 

Response: The Bureau connot place enforceable environmental conditions 
in the patent. 

The control on how privately owned land is used and developed 
is the responsibility of local government, and they have the 
authority and responsibility under State law and through 
local planning and zoning regulations and building codes, to 
place environmental conditions on the development of private 
lands to insure that mitigating measures are incorporated 
into a new community. 



82 




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

REGIONAL OFFICE 



SO FULTON STREET J 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 9410E 



June 4, 1973 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
R~ lAMD MANAOEMCT+lE 



JUN6 73 



OFFICE OF 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 No. First Ave. 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

K.e: Planet Townsite - Draft Environmental Statement (DES 7318) 



CD — — ^_ 


AS.SQC. SD y 


PCS i^~ 


«?e sources 




TECH SER 


KGMTSCR 


PJ3. AFF 




ACTION 




INFO. 




SEE MK 



Dear Sir: 

The above referenced material has been received by this office in accord- 
ance with this agency's guidelines for compliance with the National En- 
vironmental Policy Act, P.L. 91-190. 

The proposed action describes an exchange of public land for similarly 
valued private land. If completed, this land exchange may permit the de- 
velopment of a new townsite with an ultimate population of approximately 
20,000 persons. 

The statement identifies the recreational potential and devotes consider- 
able space to this facet of the proposed development. The projected p>pu- 
lation will apparently be at or near retirement age, although younger 
families may be expected. The need for educational facilities is mentioned 
with sites for four elementary, one junior and one senior high schools. 
These are to be delayed until adequate population levels are reached to 
require their construction. 

Assuming that the majority of the popjlation will be in the over 40 year 
age group, adequate medical and hospital services should be available. 
The climatic extremes are such that dependence should not be placed on 
services at remotely located centers, such as Lake Havasu City or Parker. 
The time-distance factor may well be too great for adequate medical care. 

The opportunity to review this statement is appreciated. 



Sincerely, 








Fernando E.G. De Baca 
Regional Director 



83 



Response to Comments 

by 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 

Comment : Points out that adequate medical and hospital facilities 
should be available. 

Response : Medical services and resources available at the present time 
to prospective new inhabitants of the proposed community 
consist of three doctors in Parker and six in Lake Havasu 
City; three osteopathic doctors in Parker and two in Lake 
Havasu City; two dentists in Parker and four in Lake Havasu 
City; two optometrists in Parker and one in Lake Havasu 
City. There is one hospital in Parker with a capacity of 
36 beds, one hospital in Lake Havasu City accredited with 
the Arizona Hospital Association containing 34 beds, and in 
addition, there are two hospitals in Blythe and an 83-bed 
hospital in Kingman. 



84 



NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS 



' JAMES A. HALEY, FLA., CHAIRMAN 
FOY A. TAYLOR, N.C. 
HAROLD T. JOHNSON, CALIF. 
MORRIS K. UOALL, ARIZ. 
PHILLIP BURTON, CALIF. 
THOMAS S. FOLEY, WASH. 
ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER. WIS. 
JAMES G. O'HARA, MICH, 
PATSY T. MINK, HAWAII 
LLOYD MEEDS, WASH. 
ABRAHAM KAZEN, JR., TEX. 
ROBERT O. STEPHENS, JR., OA. 
JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, PA. 
JOHN MELCHER, MONT. 
TENO RONCAUO. WYO. 
JONATHAN B. BINGHAM, N.Y. 
JOHN F. SQBERL1NG, OHIO 
HAROLD RUNNELS, N. MEX. 
YVONNE BRATHWAITE BURKE, CALIF. 
ANTONIO BORJA WON PAT, GUAM 
WAYNE OWENS, UTAH 
RON DE LUGO, V.I. 
JAMES R. JONES, OKLA. 



JOHN P. SAYLOR, PA. 
CRAIG HOSMER, CALIF. 
JOE SKUBITZ, KANS. 

SAM STEIGER, ARIZ. 
DON H. CLAUSEN, CALIF. 
PHILIP E. RUPPE, MICH. 
JOHN N. HAPPY CAMP, OKLA. 
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., N. MEX. 
JOHN DELLENBACK, OREG. 
KEITH G. SEBELIUS, KANS. 
RALPH 5. REGULA, OHIO 
ALAN STEELMAN, TEX. 
JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, N.J. 
DAVID TO WELL, NEV. 
JAMES G. MARTIN, N.C. 
WILLIAM M. KETCHUM, CALIF. 
PAUL W. CRONIN, MASS. 
DON YOUNG, ALASKA 



COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 
&.£>. Sjouee of jRepresftntatibes 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 

May 9, 1973 



SIDNEY L. MCFARLAND 

STAFF DIRECTOR AND CLERK 

LEWIS A. SIGLER 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

CHARLES LEPPERT, JR. 
MINORITY COUNSEL 




Mr. Joseph Fallini 
Arizona State Office 
Bureau of Land Management 
Room 3204 Federal Building 
230 North 1st Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 



A review of the draft environmental statement 
concerning a proposed Federal-State-private land 
exchange in the Bill Williams area of Western Arizona 
convinces me that any such exchange should be 
deferred until land use planning and other factors 
have been considered. 

The Congress is now considering national land 
use planning legislation which provides for grants-in- 
aid to the States to institute land use planning processes 
within their borders. The Subcommittee on the 
Environment of the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives, which I 
have the honor to chair, expects in the near future 
to report out a bill to accomplish this purpose, and 
the Senate counterpart Committee is developing similar 
legislation. 

Although Arizona so far has not more than what is 
essentially a beginning study of problems of land use 
planning, with virtually no legislative guidelines being 
set forth, I believe that, under the new legislation, 
the State eventually will take advantage of the Federal 
incentives and begin development of a program long 
overdue. It would be a travesty if a project such as 



85 



- 2 - 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 



May 9, 1973 



the proposed new city near the Planet Ranch in Mohave 
County were. .allowed to proceed without the benefit of 
a land use planning program which would extend beyond 
the boundaries of the townsite itself. It would be all 
the more a tragedy if Federal public lands under your 
jurisdiction and State lands were committed to this 
project without the thorough thinking -thro ugh a Statewide 
land use planning process could provide. 

This is to request, then, that the Bureau of Land 
Management defer action on the proposed exchange at the 
present time. I am writing to the Department of 
Economic Planning and Development and to the State Land 
Commission urging deferral at the State level also; and 
I am communicating with the Supervisors of both Mohave 
and Yuma Counties, pointing out to them, among other 
things, that, as is stated in the draft environmental 
statement, development of a large scale new community 
may cost present residents more money via taxes than the 
community contributes to the tax rolls. 

It is my hope that our Subcommittee may hold some 
field hearings at or near the site of the proposed new 
city this summer, at which time we may be able to 
develop additional information on the basis of which 
sound decisions may be made in the future. But for now, 
I think deferral of action is called for. 



Sincerely, 




2^AUL . 



orris K. Udall 

irman, Subcommittee 
on the Environment 



86 



Response to Comments 
by 

Hon. Morris K. Udall 
U. S. House of Representatives 



Comment: Congress is considering national legislation on land use 

planning. Requests decision on proposed exchange be deferred. 

Response: See following letter dated May 24, 1973, from Arizona State 
Director, BLM. 



Comment : 



Points out that cost to the county may cost the present resi- 
dents more money than the new community would contribute. 



Response : The following statement has been offered by Mr. Frank Brophy, 
Jr., on behalf of AR&M: 

"The company has made some effort to study the question of 
fiscal impact of the proposed new community upon county finances. 
We are unaware of any studies which might shed some light on 
this matter, but have briefly discussed the question with engineer- 
ing personnel involved in similar projects. The consensus of 
opinion appears to be that a properly developed community with 
appropriate public improvement districts should not be a drain 
upon the local county government but an asset. We know of no 
claim being made to the effect that Lake Havasu City is a drain 
upon the finances of Mohave County. We believe the opposite to 
be true. Most of the expensive governmental functions of Lake 
Havasu City are covered by local funds raised through the Lake 
Havasu Irrigation and Drainage District. Fountain Hills, a 
somewhat comparable community east of Phoenix and Scottsdale, 
has formed a sanitary district, four road improvement districts 
and a public utility water company. These costs are thus borne 
either by the developer or the landowner while the community is 
getting established. The principal cost to the county in these 
communities is the cost of providing police protection. Most of 
the other county costs are directly related to population, and 
it is difficult to ascertain the basis for a complaint based on 



87 



tss 



Morris K. Udall, cont'd 

the occupation of land by individuals since it is the primary 
purpose of county government to serve such people, and in 
theory such people, unless they are on welfare, pay for the 
services extended to them by the county. There was recent 
public criticism of the community of Sun City by the Phoenix 
Chamber of Commerce upon the grounds that Sun City was a drain 
upon county finances and should incorporate to relieve the 
county taxpayer of this unfair burden. The criticism was not 
substantiated by any studies or factual data, but in view of 
the character of Sun City and the sources of county funds, it 
is more likely that Sun City contributes more to county finances 
than it receives in comparison with other areas of the county. 

"The Arizona Legislature has provided many means whereby a 
community can finance and pay for many services and facilities 
which would otherwise be provided by municipalities or county 
governments: For example, A.R.S. 45-2301, et seq., provides 
for flood control districts; A.R.S. 11-701, et seq., provides 
for county improvement districts for the improvements of roads, 
sidewalks, drainage systems, pipes, hydrants, and appliances 
for fire protection, sewers, and sewage facilities, domestic 
water systems, and street lighting systems; A.R.S. 36-1231 
provides for a district for the construction and operation of 
hospitals; A.R.S. 36-1301, et seq., provides for the estab- 
lishment of a sanitary district to construct, maintain, and 
operate a sewage system and garbage disposal system; and A.R.S. 
9-1001, et seq., provides for the formation, maintenance and 
financing of voluntary fire companies. All of these districts 
are supported by taxes levied upon the lands within the districts 
who are to receive the benefits of the services provided by 
the districts. The counties act as fiscal agents for handling 
the tax moneys raised to finance the operations of such districts. 
Such districts should not be considered a burden upon the county 
but a burden only upon the taxpayers directly benefitted by the 
district. In addition to the districts there is the initial 
possibility open to a developing community for contract services 
in the field of security and fire protection. At present in 
the Fountain Hills development, McCulloch Properties, Inc., 
contracts with the Rural Fire Department, a privately held 
public utility, for security and fire protection. Similar 
arrangements may be possible during the early stages of the 
proposed new community. 

"While the company has not considered the exact manner in which 
the development would be financed, it should be noted that if 
McCulloch Properties, Inc., undertakes to develop the community, 
that company's past history indicates a use of such districts to 
support various public services for its communities." 




IN REPLY REFZR TO 



1792 (911) 
Planet Townsite 



United States Department of the Interior 

.;• BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

May 24, 1973 

Hon. Morris K. Udall 

Chairman, Subcommittee on the Environment 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 
U.S. House of Representatives 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Udall: 

This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 9, commenting 
on the draft Environmental Statement concerning the proposed Federal- 
State-private land exchange in the Bill Williams area. 

This exchange proposal was initiated several years ago by the Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Company who desire to block up their private land 
holdings in the Planet Ranch area for development of a new town. The 
State Land Department has filed an exchange application for Federal, 
lands that lie on the border of the proposed townsite, in order to 
obtain potential high value lands for the benefit of the State School 
Trust fund. The Mohave County Board of Supervisors supported the 
proposed exchanges and new town development. 

The proposed land exchanges would have certain benefits for the Federal 
Government. The Arizona Ranch and Metals Company owns many parcels of 
land along the Bill Williams River Valley, many of which have important 
wildlife values. One of these tracts would make a valuable addition to 
.the Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. The Arizona Ranch and Metals 
Company can proceed with development of their private lands whether or 
not an exchange is made. There are about 3900 acres of Federal lands 
intermingled and surrounded by State and private lands which would be 
isolated if urban development proceeds without the exchange. We there- 
fore were willing to consider the proposal to consolidate the private, 
State, and Federal lands in the vicinity and analyze the impact this 
would have on the area. Our draft Environmental Statement is an attempt 
to analyze this impact. 

We have received a number of comments from interested agencies, organiza- 
tions, and individuals. We plan to discuss these comments and reevaluate 
the exchange proposal with State officials, the Mohave County Board of 
Supervisors, and the exchange proponents. It will be several months 



89 



before the final Environmental Statement is prepared. 

We appreciate receiving your comments and recommendations. We will 
consult further with you before a decision is made on the proposed 
exchange. 

Sincerely, 



fc^M&£ 



Joe T. Fallini 
State Director 



cc: 

Ariz Adm. Asst. Pray 

Director, w/cy related corres. 
DM, Phoenix District, w/cy 
related corres. 



90 



«J*\.fifl Ik. 



vii/ ; 



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

AREA OFFICE 
2500 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90057 



AREA OFFICES : 

Lob Angeles, California 

San Francisco, California 



REGIONAL IX 

REGIONAL OFFICE 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 



MAY 3 



Mr . Joe T . Fallini 

State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Arizona State Office 

3022 Federal Building 

230 North First Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 




<C«!rt!W> MANAGEMENT 




M 'i 


73 


IN REPLY REFER TO: 


9.2PP - J. Furstenthal 


rD 




Telephone: 688-5856 


rr.zuc. spf 


J'C-S 1/ 






RSOOUR'JES 






i.:z\\ i.fR 




l.'.C.M'T SEH 




PUD. AFF 




CF 


ACT ION 




INFO. 







SEE ME 





Dear Mr. Fallini: 

Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Statement for 
the Proposed Planet Townsite (DES 73 18) 

This proposal involves the exchange of approximately 9,646 acres of 
Federal lands in Mohave County, Arizona for State and private lands. 
The exchange will permit the development of a new town in the 
vicinity of the existing Planet Ranch on the Bill Williams River . The 
site is approximately 13 miles east of Parker Dam. The townsite 
would involve about 11,980 acres and permit the eventual use of the 
town by 7,000 families. 

It is the conclusion of this office that although the statement has 
adequately addressed the immediate environmental impact of the 
project, insufficient emphasis has been placed on the long range 
urbanization of the area that may be generated as a secondary impact 
of the project. It also appears that there has been little contact with 
the State Department of Economic Planning and Development and the 
Counties of Mohave and Yuma regarding the long range land use 
planning of those agencies. 

COMMENTS : 

1. It is indicated that land use controls over topographic changes 
are infeasible and that the land could be completely cleared by the 
private developers . If the preservation of topographic features is 
considered an important environmental assest, governmental control 



91 



could be exercised through the subdivision, design, and permit review 
processes . It is a primary responsibility of public agencies to ensure 
that there is coherence in land use development within their jurisdictions . 
Increasingly, the importance of this responsibility is being recognized. 

2. The statement is inconsistent in its treatment of the economic objectives 
of the new town. On the one hand, it is stated that no industry is planned, 
while elsewhere stating that industry may be inevitable and that the 
community could support "small industries". In this area, controls could 
also be exercised by the Interior Department or the State and local 
governments if it is determined that industrial development would be 
more detrimental than beneficial to the environment in the vicinity of 

the new townsite . 

3. The problem of providing a range of new governmental services is 
addressed but not quantified. An investigation of the incremental costs 
of providing services to the new town should be made and projected 
costs weighed against reasonable expected revenues from taxation. 

4. The land use control proposed to prevent construction of residences 
with fewer than 1,200 square feet of living space appears exclusionary by 
implicitly prohibiting the construction of low- cost housing . 

5 . The "No Action" alternative to the proposed development implies 
that urban development is inevitable at this location and that planned 
growth is preferable to haphazard growth . While this may be the 
case, urban development controls could be exercised to control growth 
significantly, even if the land exchange is not consummated. We 
re-emphasize the responsibility of public agencies to direct land use. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental State- 
ment for the Planet Townsite . We hope that you will send a copy of the 
Final Statement to us upon completion. 




Sincerely, j" . 



s~ Area Director 



92 



Response to Comments 
by 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 



Comment : The draft does not place sufficient emphasis on the 
secondary impacts of the proposed townsite. 

Response : The statement acknowledges that there may be secondary 
impacts caused by additional development of communities 
similar to the proposed Planet Townsite if the Planet 
Townsite is successful. 

Comment : It appears there has been little contact with DEPAD 
or the counties involved. 

Response : See letter dated June 25, 1973, from Ryley, Carlock 
and Ralston, in Appendix F. 

Comment : It is a primary responsibility of public agencies to 
insure coherence in land use development within their 
jurisdictions. 

Response : Environmental consideration will be considered in 

making a decision on the proposed exchange. However, 
if the exchange is consummated and the land proposed 
for development becomes private, the ultimate decision 
for the development of a townsite will be the responsi- 
bility of various State and county planning and zoning 
bodies. 

Comment : The statement is inconsistent in its treatment of economic 
objectives of the new town. 

Response : At this time no industry is planned. The statement 

recognizes that even though none is planned, plans may 
change and there is a possibility that some sort of 
light industry may develop. 

Comment : A study comparing costs against expected revenue from 
taxation should be made. 

Response : See letter in Appendix F from Ryley, Carlock and 
Ralston, dated June 25, 1973. 



93 



Department of Housing and Urban Development, cont'd 

Comment : Planned development will prohibit the construction of 
low cost housing. 

Response : The purpose of the development is not designed for 
low-cost housing. 

Comment ; Statement indicates development is inevitable. 
Response : See letter mentioned above. 



94 



d aaiaaiiMflBfiiaatfliatti ■ 



imhfMi i't'i iiftfifrmtif riiii fill 'irifflrr*'-' 



tf<* ENr °, 



= * 



* o 
* 



'°^ M «<** 



REGION IX 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

P.O. Box 36003 

San Francisco, California 94102 



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION 

PHOENIX INSURING OFFICE 

244 WEST 0SB0RN ROAD 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85013 

May 2, 1973 



IN REPLY REFER TO! 



PWV 

Re: Draft Environmental Impact State- 
ment, Proposed Planet Townsite, 
Mohave County, Arizona 



Mr. Joe Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 North First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 8f>02£ 

Dear Mr. Pallini: 

We have reviewed the draft EIS for the proposed Planet 
Townsite. Please be advised that we find that no signif- 
icant adverse environmental impacts will be exerted upon 
the proposed residential area. While it is clear that 
residential land use will exert some adverse impact on 
wildlife, vegetation and the undisturbed character of 
adjacent lands, we would expect other reviewing agencies 
whose primary responsibility relates directly to adjacent 
environment to comment adequately on such impacts. 

We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing and commenting 
on the Draft EIS. 




^L 




95 



nn^HBramin 



, ; , vV> a.. - . - , f- . -w . Tia . - , i' t 



Response to Comments 
by 
Department of Housing and Urban Development 



Comment: Do not feel that the proposed development will 
adversely affect the environment. 



Response: None 



96 




UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 

POST OFFICE BOX 1306 
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO 87103 



INR!iEWifr/«CI5ERcrO: 

DU. LA^D MANAGEMENT 



ws MAY 



73 



/N'-.COC. SO 



| I. ::,{ si R 
HtlM'T M.l<_ 
PUD. AFF 

C r 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 



ACTION 
— " INFO. 

-T5T3 see me 



From: 
Subject: 



May 2 

State Director, Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office, 3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue, Fnoenix, Arizona 85025 

Regional Director, Region 2 

Review of EIS: Planet Towns ite, Mohave County, Arizona 
(DES-73/18) 



We have reviewed the subject draft and, as you are aware, this 
proposal and associated aspects will have significant impacts on our 
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. To begin with, we will address our 
comments to the refuge impacts. 

The townsite in question is five or six miles up the Bill Williams 
River from the present east boundary of the Bill Williams Unit of the 
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. It is quite evident that the Bill 
Williams Unit will be strongly affected by the development of a city 
of 20,000 people in that close a proximity; however, the nature and 
character of the lands within the refuge, and those that are _ proposed 
to be converted from private ownership to federal ownership in the ex- 
change transaction, are such that they may be partially protected from 
the public if adequate precautions are taken in the construction and 
location of the state highway (page 17) which will serve the new city 
and in the use these people make of the refuge. 

It will be extremely important to the future welfare of wildlife and 
refuge management in the Bill Williams Unit that the highway be 
constructed with controlled access through the entire stretch extending 
through the refuge. A considerable portion of the existing refuge ^has 
been nominated for designation as a Research Natural Area. This will 
hopefully give it additional protection. 

The most important feature of the proposed exchange of lands as far as 
the Havasu Refuge and the wildlife thereon is concerned is the fact 
that the Arizona Ranch and Metals Corporation proposes to relinquish to 
the Federal Government for refuge purposes at least 560 acres of ranch 
lands, both developed and undeveloped, which include the entire lower 
Planet Ranch complete with irrigation wells. This will provide the 



97 



Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife with a long needed acreage of 
lands already cleared, developed and irrigated. It is possible for 
this Bureau to work out cooperative agreements with the Planet Ranch 
to continue this or a similar operation on the lands that will not be 
relinquished to the Federal Government in order to keep these lands 
productive of waterfowl values, primarily for the Canada goose. 

We are presently moving to request additional withdrawal in the Bill 
Williams to complement these lands. Our Refuge Division, therefore, 
has been in favor of this exchange transaction since its inception a 
few years ago, partly on the basis that the Planet Ranch people had 
succeeded in acquiring most of the bottomlands up and down the Bill 
Williams River together with the water rights that accrue to them and 
therefore were primary owners of practically all of the riparian lands 
of any value to wildlife in the Bill Williams river bottom, upstream 
from the Bill Williams Unit of the Havasu Refuge. 

The Arizona Ranch and Metals people have only one other alternative 
(page 79) to exchanging with the Federal Government for a solid block 
of land at a higher location, which is to exploit the lands already 
acquired in the river bottom. This would destroy the future potential 
for the Bureau's management of Canada geese on any portion of the Planet 
Ranch lands, and would require an intensive and costly development on 
the part of this Bureau in order to secure the wildlife benefits. The 
Arizona Ranch and Metals people, having invested to the extent that they 
have in the Bill Williams bottom lands areas, would have no alternative 
but to seek to get their money back on the original investment by moving 
towards the highest returns possible on the lands that had been acquired 
in the river bottom proper. 

There should be some study made, we feel, of the return flows that will 
be passed back to the underground water supply in the Bill Williams so 
that some forecast could be prepared as to the actual water use and its 
effect on the habitat in the refuge. The most important feature should 
be on arrangement for a sustained minimum flow of water out of Alamo Dam 
in order to at least maintain the supply of underground water in the Bill 
Williams aquifer beneath the river bed. 

Unquestionably there will be other adverse effects of the development of 
a city at the Planet site. Generally speaking, we believe that the 
development of the Planet city site as described in this EIS will be 
preferable to any kind of development that might otherwise be anticipated 
along the river bottoms. We are certain that adverse effects will be 
felt in the pressures of people traffic up and down the Bill Williams 
River through the refuge and that there will certainly be additional 
requirements for control of public use by wheeled vehicles and by people 
engaged in other than program related uses. Again, these effects will 



98 



probably not be as serious as they would be if the development were 
contained in the bottom lands. The additional acreages of private 
lands that may eventually become Bureau lands in the exchange will 
compensate in some measure for the increased problems brought about by 
people, because these lands will be managed primarily for their 
wildlife values and can be protected basically from adverse effects, 
provided, of course, water supplies do not diminish and wipe out 
riparian vegetation in the lower reaches of the Bill Williams River. 

In addition to the above comments, which primarily involve our refuge 
program, we offer the following comments. 

The maps in this draft are inadequate in several regards. 

1. Map 2, 3 and 5 should clearly delineate the Bill Williams 
Unit of the Havasu NWR by using a , zip-o-tone overlay. 
These maps now show an unidentified boundary which, if it 
indicates the refuge boundary, is incorrect. The lands 
along Lake Havasu north of the Bill Williams Unit were 
deleted from the Havasu NWR a number of years ago. 

2. Map 2 £ 3 should clearly show a number of facilities 
mentioned in the text but not shown on any map: the power 
lines, gas line, access road to Lake Havasu and airstrip 
mentioned on page 4; highways 95 and 93, Yuma County Road, 
Mohave County Road, BR transmission line and El Paso 
natural gas line on page 17 . 

3. Map 3. The first symbol (Federal land desired by the State) 
does not appear any place on this map. The reader must 
assume it's the same as the last symbol (Federal lands 
desired by both State and Private). 



4. Map 5 does not identify the stippled area, 
from name of Havasu NWR. 



Delete "Lake" 



On page 20 in the third paragraph, the value of the flood plain for 
nesting white-winged doves should be stressed. Nesting habitat for 
this valuable migratory game bird is rapidly being destroyed in Arizona 
and this is of grave concern of State and Federal wildlife agencies. 

In the last sentence on page 20 "maybe" should be changed to "is". 
The Bill Williams River, particularly at the delta, is one of the 
prime known habitats of the endangered Yuma clapper rail. 



In the third paragraph on page 22, 
NWR should be specifically named. 



the Bill Williams Unit of the Havasu 
The BSFSW has an application on file 



99 



with BLM to withdraw a part of Area A on page 22 to enlarge the Bill 
Williams Unit. This pending application, as it may be amended, should 
be noted here and elsewhere in the EIS where appropriate. 

On page 24, the Havasu NWR is credited with 27 miles of Havasu Lake 
shoreline in Arizona. Since the main body of Havasu Lake was deleted 
from the refuge, only about 8 miles of shoreline remain under refuge 
administration; about 3 miles at the Bill Williams Unit and about 5 
miles at the upper end of the lake below Topock Gorge. 

The description of Area F on page 24 leaves the false impression that 
most of the riparian land along the Bill Williams River is in private 
ownership. Actually, most of this riparian land is within the Bill 
Williams Unit of the Havasu NWR and should be clearly shown on Maps 2, 
3 and 5. 

On page 28, mining is mentioned as an important industry in Mohave 
County, yet no mention of mining is made on pages 36-37 where economic 
conditions are discussed. 

Paving the primary access road from Lake Havasu (page 4) to provide 
access to the proposed townsite will create major impacts on the Bill 
Williams River. The present road alignment is not suitable for improve- 
ment without considerable modification to both the vertical and 
horizontal alignments to meet State and Federal road standards. Upgrading 
this road will entail making large cuts and fills in the hilly area and 
will undoubtedly encroach on the riparian river bottom habitat. 

The sanitary land fill for the development will evidently be on public 
lands . We wonder why this use is not confined to the private holdings , 
rather than BLM? 

The water investigation made by Turner and Associates (page 11) was made 
in 1962. This was prior to Alamo Dam and there is reason to believe that 
the ground water systems have changed to some degree since that time. It 
would appear that other alternate sources of water should be discussed, 
including subsequent impacts. The excessive utilization of ground water 
may cause further deterioration of the river's riparian vegetation. 

The increased ground water utilization, septic tank drainage, and sewage 
plant effluents, as well as irrigation of farm lands, will cause an 
increase in TDS in both the ground water and surface water of the Bill 
Williams drainage which will add to the already critical salt problem 
in the lower Colorado. 

We note that the flora and fauna lists provided in Appendix A do not 
include a listing of the avifauna, although the "wildlife" section on 
page 18 indicates a bird listing is included. The mammal list includes 
one threatened species (Spotted Bat) and two undetermined or peripheral 
status subspecies (Yuma Cougar and Mexican Pronghorn) . 



100 



The draft does discuss certain aspects regarding the pronghorn but 
does not address itself to the threatened spotted bat or the Yuma 
lion. These should be given further consideration and clarification. 

The existing pattern of land ownership makes it difficult, if not 
impossible, to properly manage the existing resources but it would not 
necessarily prevent private development, which in turn would create 
greater problems. It appears that an exchange may be the most 
acceptable solution for all concerned. However, on page 2 of the draft 
there appears a very key statement, "There is also the possibility that 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Company could sell their interests to other 
developers who could completely redesign the proposed town." This is 
an honest recognition of a rather common practice. The draft should 
address this possibility by indicating what steps could be taken to 
either lessen this possibility or what will be done to safeguard the 
adjacent public resources if a major design or use change occurred. 

We are concerned with protecting and maintaining the bighorn population 
which inhabits this area, if this is possible. The draft recognizes 
this encroachment threat to the species (pages 46-47). However, the 
draft should further define the lambing area and its relationship to 
the townsite, as well as providing a somewhat more direct evaluation 
on the probability of maintaining the lambing grounds and, in turn, the 
population. We believe there is a very strong possibility that the 
sheep population which currently utilizes this general area will be lost 
as a result of the proposed development. 

The off-site water recreational impacts of the townsite' s future 
population cannot reasonably be absorbed in the Parker strip area or 
immediately above Parker Dam. The strip is already out of control and 
the adjacent river uses are in direct conflict. Lake Havasu itself 
may support the increased water oriented recreational use, but it is 
logical to assume that the Parker area must also expect considerable 
impacts which will only add to the existing problems. This should be 
more fully explored in the draft, including management implications 
or options. — . / 




101 



Response to Comments 

by 

U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 
(Fish and Wildlife Service) 



Comment : The access road to the proposed townsite will have 
adverse impacts on the Havasu National Wildlife 
Refuge. Controlled access will help mitigate adverse 
impacts. 

Response ; The statement recognized that increased travel would 
have an adverse impact on wildlife using the refuge 
and adjacent lands. 

Comment : The Refuge Division favors the exchange. 

Response : The Refuge Division of BSF&W has been interested in 
acquiring the NFA; of Section 29, T. 11 N., R. 17 W. 
(160 acres), as an addition to the present refuge. 
See Appendix I. The proposal has been altered and 
does not include these lands. 

Comment : Should make a study to determine the actual water use 
and its effect on habitat on the refuge. 

Response : The reduced community size will use significantly 
less water and its potential impact on the refuge 
habitat will be reduced. 

Comment : Maps are inadequate. 

Response : Maps have been revised. 

Comment : Suggests revisions be made in wording for clarification 
on pages 20, 22, 24, and 28 of the draft statement. 

Response : Text in final statement has been revised where 
appropriate. 

Comments : Present road alignment is not suitable for upgrading 
without considerable modification. 



102 



..-■■.,■ ..:. ,, ■ :■ 



U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, cont'd 



Response : The existing road was constructed by Yuma County 

in 1967. If the proposed townsite is developed, it 
is reasonable to expect that considerable modification 
of the existing vertical and horizontal alignments will 
be required to provide safe access for residents of 
the area. See letter from Arizona Highway Department 
dated December 17, 1973, in Appendix F. 

Comment : Why is a sanitary landfill planned for BLM land 
rather than private land? 

Response : The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of June 14, 1926, 
as amended, provides for public lands to be used for 
such purposes. However, under the modified proposal, 
private land can accommodate the sanitary landfill. 

Comment : Questions concerning amount of water, effect of water 
use on riparian vegetation, increase in total dis- 
solved solids, etc. 

Response : See sections on "Water" in Parts II, III, IV and V. 

Comment : List of avifauna was omitted from Appendix A. The 
spotted bat is threatened, and the Yuma cougar and 
Mexican pronghorn are undetermined or peripheral 
status subspecies. 

Response : Appendix A has been revised to include avifauna and 
reflect the May, 1974, United States List of 
Endangered Fauna. 

Comment : Should give further consideration and clarification 
to the Yuma lion (Yuma cougar) and the spotted bat. 

Response : Although both species have been known to occur in 

the area, present information does not indicate any 
recent observation of the spotted bat or the Yuma 
lion. The March 1973 edition of "Threatened Wildlife 
of the United States" does not list the Yuma cougar. 
The May 1974 United States List of Endangered Fauna 
does not list either the spotted bat or the Yuma 
cougar. 



103 



,S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, cont'd 



Comment: 



Response : 



Comment: 



Response : 



Comment : 



Statement should indicate what steps could be taken 
to protect adjacent public resources if the planned 
development did not proceed as presently envisioned 
by Arizona Ranch and Metals. 

Environmental considerations will be considered in 
making a decision on the proposed exchange. However, 
once the land passes into private ownership, under 
current law it will be the responsibility of State 
and local planning and zoning organizations to 
regulate and guide development. 

Feels the bighorn sheep population in the vicinity of 
the proposed townsite would be lost as a result of the 
development . 

The text of the final statement has been revised to 
reflect this possibility. 

The impacts of off-site water-oriented recreational 
uses should be more fully explored. 



Response : The recreation impacts section of the final statement 
has been revised. 



104 



v ,'r,.:-.:K. liaafatit^&^ii. ... 




OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 



United States Department of the Interior 



DES 73-18 



Memorandum 
To: 



GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20242 

June 6, 1973 






Jlffl 5 73 



ASSOC '?.! ; ' 


re; _jt" 3 "*"~ ' 


BESodket!'' 


TCCH Sff 


MGWT SLR 


» .- ft*vi 


Cf 


MWM MH» ■ 


_ ™_ 



State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, 
Arizona 



From: Director, Geological Survey 

Subject: Review of draft environmental statement for Planet 
Town site, Mohave County, Arizona 

We have reviewed the subject draft environmental statement as you 
requested. Our comments are as follows: 

Geology 

Inasmuch as detailed data pertaining to the geology of the project site 
is unavailable, it is strongly suggested that an engineering-geology in- 
vestigation of the site be made prior to any development. Such investi- 
gation, including drilling results, would serve to properly assess soil 
and geologic conditions and their relationship to suitable project 
implementation. Anticipated use of certain areas by off-road vehicles 
should also be considered with regard to soil and geologic conditions 
of" the project area. 

Hydrology 

The estimate in the report of ground-water recharge, either present or 
potential, is excessive. Also the estimate of ground water in storage 
for use during a drought year appears to be much too large for a valley 
of this size. 

Page 11 lists five sources of recharge which presumably is the basis for 
the estimate of recharge. Itemi2, underflow from Bill Williams River, 



105 



cannot be counted as net recharge. The net recharge would be the in- 
flow into the area of potential development minus the underflow out. 
Very likely, these two values would approximately balance each other 
out, leaving a net ground-water increment of near zero. Item 3, un- 
derflow from north and south, would be very small. Studies in similar 
areas of low precipitation indicate very little recharge potential. 
Item 4, recharge back to ground-water reservoir from irrigation use, 
doesn't constitute net recharge to the system. It represents only 
that part of the water withdrawn that is not lost. Item 5, recharge 
from precipitation on the valley, is zero. 

The statement should fully consider the geologic-hydrologic situation 
either affecting or affected by the planned liquid and solid waste 
disposal systems. 

letlng Director '- 



106 



Response to Comments 

by 
Geological Survey 

Comment : Engineering-geology investigations should be made 
prior to development. 

Response : Prior to final approval of any development, compliance 

with State laws concerning water use and sewage disposal 
will be required by the State of Arizona (Appendix K) . 

Comment : The estimates of the quantity of water available are 
not correct. 

Response : The text has been revised. 



i i 



107 



- V 

'!■■■'. 

Vi 



& 




United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

PHOENIX AREA OFFICE 

P.O. Box 7007 

Phoenix, Arizona 8501 1 



IN REPLY REFER TO: 



Real Prop. Mgmt. 
300.1 - Colo. River 



May 30, 1973 



Memorandum 

To: Arizona State Director, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

From: Area Director 

Subject: Review of Draft Environmental Statement for the Proposed 
Planet Townsite, Mohave County, Arizona (DES 73/18) 

This office has completed its review of the subject statement. In view 
of the qualifying remarks contained in the last paragraph on Page 2, 
it appears the statement is largely academic, and the "Planet Townsite" 
is merely one of a variety of developments that could occur as a 
result of the land exchange. 

A more definite proposal is necessary in order for us to assess adequately 
the impact of the Federal action, which in this case is the land exchange, 
on the adjacent Colorado River Indian Reservation. An alternative would 
be to make the land exchange the subject of the impact statement and list 
the townsite as only one of several development possibilities. 



x3^ zzf&. 



Acting AssT Area Director 



LSTOTE OFFICE 
Bit UUK> MANAGEMENT 

JUNl 73 



108 



«0 




ASSOC. SD^/" 


J»CS Ks' 




RE!SO<URCES 


TECHSER 




MSWTC SE» 


PJB.AFF 




CF 






ACTION 
INFO. 




2 


SEE ME 



Response to Comments 
by 
Bureau of Indian Affairs 



Comment : Statement is academic since it is the exchange of 

Federal lands and not the development of a townsite 
that is the Federal action being analyzed. The 
development of a townsite is only one of a variety 
of possibilities for development of these lands once 
they pass from Federal ownership. 

Response : This may very well be the case. However, Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Co. has publicly announced their 
intentions for a planned community development. 



109 




IN REPLY REFER TO: 



AR 

CU 

no 


70NA STATE OFFICE 
L/.MO MAN/.SCMENT 


Ar.z 


yajrf 






l»*^ 




lit at 


susues 




T_c: 


SLR 




r,:n.M 


'I St'H 




PUD. 


Aff 




CF 






AC DON 


INFO. 






SEE M- 



United States Department of the Interior / i 7 ??, (I ! lt) 

c (C-911.4 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

STATE OFFICE 

Federal Office Bldg., Room E-2841 

2800 Cottage Way 

Sacramento, California 95825 



JUN 1 1973 

Memorandum 

To: State Director, Arizona 

From: State Director, California 

Subject: Draft Environmental Statement on Planet Townsite 
(DES 73-18) 

Based upon our review of the draft statement on proposed land exchanges, 
which will lead to development of a new town, we have several observations. 
We hope these will prove useful in preparing your final statement. It 
appears that, considering the amount of information available at this 
time, this draft statement gives adequate consideration to the environmental 
impacts which might result from this development. 

1. (page 6, second paragraph). Do mean daily July temperatures range 

between 106° and 108° F, or are these mean high temperatures? 

2. (page 39, firffc paragraph). The discussion of "off-site, unauthorized 

utilization of many plants by horses" is not clear. Is trespass 
anticipated, or does the phrase refer to casual use accompanying 
equestrian activity? 

3. (page 39, first paragraph). The last sentence in this paragraph 

would appear to be more appropriately considered under mitigating 
measures, than environmental impact. 

4. (page 41, Water) . Will the septic tanks proposed for the low-density 

development area have an adverse impact upon ground water quality? 
The second paragraph may include this impact, but you may wish to 
further emphasize it through separate discussion, even though it is 
touched upon in a later section (page 59). 

5. (page 45, second paragraph). Is there any particular reason that 

sewage collection systems will not be installed together with the 
water distribution systems, or will water systems be furnished to 
the low-density development area? 




m^-Lii'j-iikaJ'M^ ljz&jmi. 



Response to Comments 

by 

California State Director 
Bureau of Land Management , USDI 



Comment : Numbered items 1, 2, and 3 refer to matters that 

would clarify material in the text of the statement. 

Response : The text has been revised. 

Comment : Will septic tanks have an adverse effect on ground- 
water quality? 

Response : The text has been revised to indicate compliance with 
standards to minimize adverse impacts. 

Comment : Will water systems be furnished to low density de- 
velopment areas; and if so, why won't sewage lines 
also be installed? 

Response : Water will be furnished to each lot in the development. 
The reason for not installing a sewage system throughout 
the low density areas is due to the cost of such a 
system and the land area for each homesite on the altered 
proposal is adequate for a septic tank system. 



Ill 






UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

Memorandum 



IN REPLY REFER TO: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE I NTERIOR 1792 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (N-911 . 3) 

Nevada State Office 

Room 3008 Federal Building 

300 Booth Street 

Reno, Nevada 89502 



date: 



to 



State Director, Arizona 



from : State Director, Nevada 



A^IIONA STATE OfFlCS 

tu L/.t::>r^w' s "- T 

riff/ 10 73 



subject: Planet Townsite Draft EIS (DES 73. 18) 

Tl 

The following comments are offered on the subject draft EISj." 
1. Air - Page 15 



r~'"> V 1 

Tl 



^zzzz. 



Enlargement of this section may be helpful to the public to 'better 
understand the present situation. A copy of the approved air quality 
standards and statistics that are available about the present air quality 
readings could be inserted here. At least a reference to the relevant 
State and Federal laws could be made as was done on page 64 of the text of 
the draft EIS. 

2. Soils - Page 40 

Are there limitations on the soils for use of the land for sewage lagoons, 
dwellings, roads, and streets? If this information is available, or if 
there are no known limitations, a statement to this effect would clarify 
this for the public. 

3. Wildlife - Page 48 

Reference is made to the sentence in the third paragraph, "Bighorn sheep, 
deer, and feral burros might, on occasion, utilize ornamental shrubbery,' 
flowers, and lawns." The question is raised as to whether these animals, 
and particularly bighorn sheep, will approach this close to a town which 
is expected to have a population of approximately 20,000 people. 

General Comments 

The illustrations used in the text of the draft EIS are effective and should 
be of interest to all who read this statement. 




P-I54I-I 
Oct. 1966 



112 



Response to Comments 

by 

Nevada State Director 
Bureau of Land Management, USDI 



Comment: Suggests additions or changes in text that would clarify 
the final EIS concerning air, soils, and wildlife. 

Response : Sections in the text concerning air, soils, and wild- 
life have been revised. 



113 



MSaOMMUi^tiM 



OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 



United States Department of the Interior 







BUREAU OF MINES 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 



May 10, 1973 



Memorandum 
To: 

Through 

From: 

Subject: 



State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State 
Office 

ssistant Secretary — Energy and Minerals 

Director, Bureau of Mines 



H 



Review of Planet Townsite (Draft) Environmental Statement 
(DES 7318) 



We have reviewed the Planet Townsite draft Environmental Statement. The 
proposed action concerns the exchange of public lands with State and pri- 
vate interests and the development of a new town in Mohave County, Ari- 
zona. The draft statement avers that no minerals other than sand and 
gravel are known to be present on the townsite itself and that the poten- 
tial for mining in the area is considered slight. There are some reserves 
of hematite and copper ore in the vicinity, but no iron has been produced 
from the property. Three million pounds of copper have been recovered, 
but the property has been inactive since 1917. Economic considerations 
appear to preclude any iron ore mining in the foreseeable future. The 
Bureau of Mines would like to emphasize, however, that rapidly changing 
technology may make these copper and iron reserves more attractive 
economically. Therefore, we recommend a thorough economic mineral survey 
before these reserves are made inaccessible by the development of a 
community nearby. As a minor point, the correct reference to "Reconnais- 
sance of Iron Resources in Arizona" (p. 68 of draft statement) is Bureau 
of Mines Information Circular 8236, by C. M. Harrer in 1964. 



ARIZONA STATC C~?)Z~ 

cu. L/.r.'o ts.twr&VJiiir: 



WW ?. r 



r. :' ■': y 


.;. si 







i '. > 


is 




R H w " ! 


r-r~ 






v.. ;; i 






r.:af.i- 

PL!?. ,' 
Cf 
















n> 




ACT 


ON 


/ 




IM 


: 0. 






■;:_; 


l',~ 



Director 



117 



Resnonse to Comments 
by 
Bureau of Mines 

Comment: Recommend a thorough economic mineral survey be made before 
reserves of iron and copper are made inaccessible. Rapidly 
changing technology may make these reserves economically 
attractive. 

Response: The proposed townsite is located north of the Bill Williams 
River, whereas the known deposits of iron and copper ore 
are south of the river. On five of the seven parcels of 
BLM land proposed for exchange, the Government does not 
own the mineral estate. A field examination did not reveal 
any evidence of mineralization on the other two parcels. 



118 




United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF MINES 

BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER 
DENVER, COLORADO 80225 



Office of 
Chief 



Intermouatain Fiel£ OperatCealSentper 




May 17, 1973 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Sir: 



The Draft Environmental Statement for the Planet Townsite has been 
reviewed as requested. 

West-central Arizona has not been as prolific a source of mineral 
output as some other areas in the State; however, it has its share 
of interesting base- and ferrous-metal prospects. One notable 
example is the New Planet iron and copper deposit located on the 
south bank of the Bill Williams River, about 1 mile south of the 
southwest corner of the planned development. 

This New Planet mineral resource is discussed briefly on page 68 
of the environmental report. The opening sentence, "The potential 
for mining is considered slight in the Planet Mine area," seems 
inappropriate. On a long-term basis remote, small, near-surface 
mineral deposits probably will be utilized as technical factors and 
economic conditions change. This should be noted. A conflict is not 
inferred, however. The single family lots, multiple family lots, and 
commercial area in the scheme of development would be located about 
3 miles north of the iron-copper deposit. Mining of this iron-copper 
resource— whether in this century or the next — would not be constrained 
by the presence of the lots in the proposed land promotion. 

We have no other comments. 



Sincerely yours, 



o,yo 



0. M. Bishop, Chief 

Intermountain Field Operation Center 




119 



Response to Comments 
by 

Bureau of Mines Intermountaln Field Operation Center 

Comment : The copper and iron deposits south of the Bill Williams 
River will probably be utilized as technical factors and 
economic conditions change. Mining would not be con- 
strained by the proposed land promotion. 

Response: Text has been revised. 



120 




IN REPLY REFER TO:' 

L7619 
(WR)CW 

Memorandum 

To: 



United States Department of the Interior 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 

WESTERN REGION 

450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, BOX 36063 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 



May 23, 1973 



ARIZONA STATE OFFI3E 
BU, l;.KD MANAGEMEfir 



MAY ?. r 



/ ■■■> 



ASSOC, S 

F'CS 



SB 



RESOURCES _lJ^ 
T£CH 5ER -*=*=— 



MGM'T SER 
PUB. AFF 
CF 



State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona S%3E5=tfc£f±ce 
Arizona 



ACTION 

INFO. 
SEE ME 



From: 



Assistant Director, Cooperative Programs, Western Region 



Subject: Draft environmental statement for the Proposed Planet Townsite, 
Arizona (DES 73-18) 

We have reviewed the subject draft environmental statement and submit the 
following comments: 

There are no proposed or existing units of the National Park System within 
the project area, nor any sites eligible for registration as National 
Historic, Natural, or Environmental Education Landmarks. 

The statement appears to have several inadequacies pursuant to Section 102 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. First, the statement fails to 
provide substantive information regarding project impact upon archeological 
and historical resources, which neither allows an assessment of the project 
itself nor that of the alternatives described. The archeological survey 
conducted by Prescott College covered only the Federal lands proposed for 
exchange, omitting the state and private lands which should be considered 
within the total project area. 

Secondly, the mitigating measures recommended in the archeological survey 
report are not fully discussed in the statement and there is no indication 
that these measures will be implemented. As the site density in the 
general project area is quite sparse, the sites that do exist assume a 
greater importance. The paucity of sites is relevant to archeological 
significance in the area settlement studies and should be examined more 
closely. 

Finally, the statement should indicate direct or indirect impacts of the 
proposed action upon cultural values based solely on professional 
determination. In doing so, the statement should indicate consultation 



121 



with the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the effects of the 
project upon properties listed or in the process of nomination to the 
National Register of Historic Places. 




Theodore R 




122 



Response to Comments 
by 
National Park Service 

Comment : The statement should consider archeological and historical 
values on State and private land, as well as Federal land. 
Mitigating measures outlined in the archeological survey 
are not discussed. 

Response; The archeological survey conducted by Prescott 

College is included in Appendix H. The text in this final 
statement has also been revised t0 reflect Federal requirements, 

Comment : The statement should indicate impacts on cultural values 

based solely on professional determination and should indi- 
cate consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Response : Studies are presently under way to determine if the Swansea 
complex or the Planet ruins will qualify for nomination 
to the National Register. See letter dated December J.8, 1973 
from Arizona State Parks (Appendix F) . 



123 





DECEIVED 

United States Department of the Interior^ 18 19 

BURFAW & UNO MANAQEWHtr 
BUREAU OF OUTDOOR RECREATION SRfl8W STA TE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 -£? r 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

MAY 15 1973 



Memorandum 

To: Director, Bureau of Land Management 

Attention: State Director, Arizona State Office 
From: Director 

Subject: Review of draft environmental impact statement for 
the proposed Planet towns ite, Mohave County, Arizona 
(DES 73/18) 



The subject report attempts to set out the environmental impact of 
a proposed subdivision development based upon extremely limited 
information furnished by the proposed developer, Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Company. This is virtually an impossible task since 
the company apparently is under no obligation either to follow 
the plans proposed or to retain the land that could be acquired 
from BLM. Conceding the limitations this places on the value of 
any Environmental Impact Statement, we will proceed to review the 
proposal . 

As we understand it, the Arizona Ranch and Metals Company proposes 
to develop a 11,980 acre townsite, with a population of 20,000 
people. The development as proposed requires the use of certain 
BLM lands which would be exchanged for State and company lands. 
The exchange would consolidate individual BLM, State and private 
land holdings and improve the ownership pattern for all three 
parties. It is pointed out that if the exchange is not consumated 
the development could still proceed using existing company-owned 
lands. The company has drawn up only preliminary plans. Accord- 
ing to the draft EIS, detailed plans will not be started until 
and if title is received to the required BLM lands. It is 
indicated that the proposed development will provide primarily 
for low density single family dwellings on one to five acre sites, 
although 400 acres would have 10,000 square foot lots. At that 
density and using the company estimate of 3.2 people per family, 
the 400-acre section will provide housing for over 5000 people, 



124 



25 percent of the total proposed population. The planned development 
map also refers to multiple family lots; however, there is only an 
oblique text reference made to these lots and no reference made to 
their proposed density. No development would take place in the Bill 
Williams River flood plain nor in the wash bottoms. It is unclear 
whether this is company policy or a legal requirement to which the 
company must conform. It is also not indicated whether the flood 
plain in which there will be no development is at the 25,50 or 100 
year level . 

Minimum land clearing is planned. The company will use deed restric- 
tions to control architectural design and prevent further subdivision. 
Planning will emphasize equestrian facilities, and also include a 
golf course, tennis courts, a 30 to 40 acre lake and a area for off- 
road vehicle use. No manufacturing industry is planned. Except for 
transmission lines electric utilities will be underground. Roads 
will be paved within the development. The primary access road from 
Lake Havasu will be paved; however, it is unclear whether the company 
or the county will do the paving. Secondary sewage treatment will be 
provided for more densely populated areas. In low density sections, 
landowners would develop their own septic tank systems. A sanitary 
landfill is planned on public land. Domestic water will be pumped 
from the Bill Williams River flood plain to storage tanks at the 
northern limits of development. The company expects to sell 80 
percent of the area within five years through interstate land sales. 

The above outline essentially covers what the company has planned. 
In reading through the project description, it is evident that not 
much time or money commitment has been made to date. Based on this 
sparse information and looking at the physical environment of project, 
some attempt was made by the BLM State Office in Phoenix to estimate 
physical impact. However, there was no real attempt to estimate the 
social impact of the project. Our review of this draft will concentrate 
on the social and recreation impact of the project. 

To assess the social impact it is essential to get information on 
company policy. Nothing of this nature has been provided. Some of 
the information needed is as follows: 

1.) History of the company's land development experience. 

2.) Estimated company infrastructure investment prior to 
any lot sale. 



125 



3.) A development schedule indicating the phasing of 
utility and recreational development. 

4.) Anticipated lot sale rate and build out rate. 
(The information given on this is contradictory. 
Also, the Lake Havasu City development rates are 
given as being comparable to rates that might be 
expected at the Planet towns ite. There is no 
justification for this comparison, since these 
two projects have virtually nothing in common. 
In fact, any use of the Lake Havasu project to 
assess potential social or physical impact or 
to describe the potential development of the 
Planet townsite, as used in this EIS, should be 
seriously questioned.) 

5.) Arrangements made by the company for home 
construction, if any; estimated construction 
costs. 

6.) The Company's expected remaining interest in 
the townsite after all lots are sold. 

7.) The price of lots with and without utilities; 
the price of raw land per acre; and estimated 
resale potential of the lots. 

8.) Maintenance fees for greenbelt and recreational 
areas. 

9.) Quality of recreation facilities provided. Is 
the proposed equestrian facility, for example, 
an already existing stable at the Planet Ranch? 
What is its' condition? Is there any improvement 
contemplated for it? 



In addition to setting out company policies, it is also vital to 
include information which would indicate the local government's 
capability to deal with a large development project. Very often 
the expertise of the developer exceeds that of the county. If 
this is the case, the county must depend on the developer to assess 
the impact of his own project. This following information should 
be included: 



126 



L 



-._ -U- w .1 _ , ,_ _ . 



1.) The size and experience of the Mohave County 
planning department. 

2.) The status of subdivision and flood plain 
regulation in the county. 

3.) The number of county-wide subdivided project 
lots that have not yet been built upon. 

4.) The distance of public facilities such as 
hospitals and schools from the project. 
(A development such as proposed often has 
a high proportion of older people who may 
require emergency medical care.) 

5.) County estimated service costs and tax yield 
from the project. (Very often speculative 
subdivisions such as the Planet townsite 
cost the county more in providing schools, 
police protection and other services than 
they yield in tax revenue. Taxes are often 
hard to collect since purchasers may have 
permanent residences outside the State.) 

6.) Although there is some information about 
roads leading to the Planet Ranch from the 
Parker Strip area, there is no information 
about a bridge crossing over the Bill Williams 
River from the Yuma County road to the ranch 
road. If there is a bridge can it be used 
all year, or are there periods when the 
Planet townsite would be without access to 
essential urban services? 

7.) Does the county have the capability to assess 

the adequacy of the quality and quantity of 

the water to be required for the Planet 
development? 

In addition we believe some information should be included on the 
State of Arizona's legal requirements for subdivision land sales. 

At this point, we would like to indicate that the company claim, cited 
in the draft EIS, that this project could proceed without BLM lands may 
be erroneous. Much of the presently owned company lands lies within 



4 
127 



the Bill Williams River flood plain. If there are state laws 
restricting development on flood plains, then the company could 
not use these lands for that purpose. Perhaps the only other 
areas that could receive intensive development, such as proposed 
for BLM administered sections 16 and 17, would be company-owned 
sections 20 and 21. These sections may have unstated physical 
limitations which would make development infeasible. These 
possible limitations should be investigated. Even if no 
limitations are found BLM should not accede to the land exchange 
simply because the company indicates it will develop anyway. 

More information is also needed on the State's role in this land 
exchange. In the proposal description and on Map 3, it is indicated 
that the State also wishes to exchange land holdings with BLM. Is 
this proposed newly acquired land then to be sold by the State to 
the Arizona Ranch and Metals Company? If so, we think it relevant 
to know whether this constitutes tacit approval of the proposed 
Planet townsite by the State. 

From the standpoint of recreation, there may be adverse impacts on 
future residents that the EIS overlooks or misinterprets. Based 
upon what was quoted in the draft EIS about visitors to Lake Havasu 
City and Parker, and lot purchasers in that area, it can be expected 
that purchasers of lots at the Planet townsite generally will be 
older people with no dependents. Even those middle-aged people 
buying lots anticipate their major use will occur during the retire- 
ment years when they presumably become permanent residents. According 
to surveys and studies carried out by BOR, interest in active 
recreation decreases with age. Interest in passive recreation also 
declines, but at a much less rapid rate. The following data taken 
from a 1972 survey of recreation participation illustrates the point. 



Horseback Riding 

Age Percent Participating Days/Participant 

12-17 15.1 8.4 

18-24 9.7 6.2 

25-44 3.8 2.0 

45-64 1.4 4.5 

65- .2 1.0 



128 



Tennis 



Age 

12-17 
18-24 
25-44 
4 5-64 
65- 



Percent Participating 



11, 

10, 

4, 

1 



5 
3 
6 
6 
.5 



Days/Participant 

13.5 
7.6 

8.9 
6.8 
2.0 



12-17 
18-24 
25-44 
45-64 
65- 



Siqhtseeing 

38.9 
38.3 
40.2 
38.6 
25.6 



5.7 
5.9 
6.3 
6.3 
5.4 



Based on this information, we believe the desirability of tennis and 
equestrian facilities for the townsite to fill recreation needs is 
questionable. The table taken from the ORRC study (p. 51 of the draft 
EIS) indicating participation without any age breakdown is both out- 
dated and misleading. It should not be used in the final EIS and no 
conclusions should be drawn from it. 

It is interesting to point out that if this draft EIS correctly evaluates 
the effect of increased domestic water use on riparian vegetation (page 39) 
sightseeing in the Bill Williams riparian area may no longer be an 
enjoyable recreation activity. In effect, the development of this 
project may eliminate a recreation activity enjoyable to older people 
and substitute those which are not. 

The statement also does not clearly indicate the purpose for the 35-acre 
lake except that it will not be used for boating, Will swimming use 
also be excluded? The statement should also indicate what lands in 
the vicinity of the townsite can be used for off-road vehicles. If 
most of the BLM administered lands can be used for that purpose, then 
the utility of a separate off-road vehicle area at the Planet townsite 
is open to question. Additionally, according to Map 4 the golf course 
will be over 2 miles away from the town center via paved road. The 
equestrian facilities will also be about two miles away from the town 
center via paved road. This should be stated in the narrative. Map 4 
also indicates that a section of the project will include multiple 



129 



family lots. These apparently are in addition to the 10,000 square 
foot lots indicated on the map and those other one to five acre 
parcels which we assume will cover the remain space area within 
the project boundaries. If the total proposed population of these 
multiple family lots exceeds 5000, then the company errs in claiming 
that the Planet townsite is primarly a low density development. 
Narrative information on these lots and projected densities should 
be included. Additionally, information should be included that would 
explain why the 10,000 square foot lots and the multiple family lot 
sections can be more intensively developed than the other part of 
the development. In other words, if most of the land within the 
project area cannot withstand intensive development, why can these 
sections be intensively developed? 

We would like to make our final comments on the project mitigations. 
Apparently the only mitigating measures to be taken are compliance 
with the law, deed restrictions, and the developer's statement that 
as little damage as possible will be done to the environment. 

Meeting legal requirements should not be considered a mitigating 
measure since the developer could be prosecuted for not meeting 
them. Deed restrictions, while valuable, limit lot purchasers 
only, and require no monetary commitment from the developer. 
Finally, the company's word that an environmentally sound job 
will be done is simply not enough. Engineering, design, and 
construction information should be included that would indicate 
a more serious commitment to a goal of mitigating the project 
impact. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment. 




'/)1M 




James G. Watt 
for „. . 

Director 



130 



Response to Comments 
by 
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI 

Comment : Not clear as to whether development would be excluded from 
the flood plain of a 25, 50, or 100-year storm area. 

Response : No structures would be placed in the flood plain of a 100- 
year flood. Effective August 8, 1973, a State statute (A.R.S. 
45-2341 et seq.) on floodplain management requires incorporated 
cities and towns and counties to delineate floodplain areas 
where development is ongoing or imminent in accordance with 
criteria developed and adopted by the Arizona Water Commission 
for the purpose of establishing what constitutes 50 and 100-year 
floods for the State of Arizona. Acting as a floodplain board 
counties and municipalities must adopt floodplain regulations 
pertaining to the subdivision of and construction upon land 
which may divert, retard or obstruct flood water. The flood- 
plain boards must also establish minimum flood protection 
elevations and flood damage prevention requirements for exist- 
ing structures and facilities vulnerable to flood damage. All 
dwellings built within a floodplain must have their minimum 
floor elevations above the high water line of a 100-year flood. 
No structures are to be built within a designated floodplain 
area unless 75 percent of the area is already platted and 
approved and utilized as of August 8, 1973, or unless a flood- 
plain regulation has been adopted or a developer is given a 

special permit. 

131 



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, cont'd 

Comment : Not clear as to who will pave the road. 

Response : See Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. letter, Appendix F. 

Roads that are to be dedicated to the county must be built 
by the developer according to county specifications. Once 
built and dedicated, they are thereafter maintained by the 
county; but if they are part of a road improvement district, 
the county is reimbursed for such maintenance by the district; 
otherwise maintenance comes out of county funds to which the 
State contributes a substantial portion from its highway user 
tax. 

Comment : Draft did not attempt to estimate the social impact of the 

project and suggests that to analyze the social impact, certain 
information would be needed (9 specific items) . 



Response : 1, 



2 to 9, 



History of company's land development experience. 

See numbered paragraph 14 on pages 7 and 8 of AR&M letter 

in Appendix F. 

The information requested concerning details for the 

actual development is not available at this time. 



Comment : Information should be included which would indicate the local 

government's capability to deal with a large development project. 

Response : See Item 12, page 7, of AR&M letter, Appendix F. 



132 



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, cont'd 



Comment : 



Response : 



In order to assess the local government's capability for 
handling this type of a proposal, seven items of information 
would be required: 

1. Size and experience of Mohave County Planning Department. 
Mohave County has a 3-member elected Board of Supervisors. The 
county also has a Planning and Zoning Commission that advises 
the Board on planning and zoning matters. They are presently 
operating under a general county planning ordinance developed 
in the mid 1960's. 



Comment : 2. Status of subdivision and floodplain regulation in the 

county. 
Response : (See item 1 above) . 

Comment : 3. Number of lots in the county that have not yet been built 
upon. 

Response : Appendix G contains a study by the Arizona Department of Economic 
Planning and Development concerning private subdivisions in 
Arizona. This study covered 46 subdivisions presently in 
Mohave County and indicated they had a capacity for 544,800 
people at this time. No information is available as to what 
percentage of the lots are developed at this time. 

Comment : 4. ■ Distance of existing schools and hospitals from the pro- 
posed development. 
Response : The nearest facilities are at Parker and Lake Havasu City. 

Each would be approximately 25 miles away over existing roads. 

133 



"r.:?v _... 



_ _ _ ■ 



0'iiii^v-.Ji; J ..-„ illw . .»_„.. „ ta 



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, cont'd 



Comment : 5. Estimated service cost to county versus expected 
revenue from taxes. 

Response : This information is not available at this time. 

Comment : 6. Is there a bridge across the Bill Williams River 
near the proposed townsite? 

Response : Some sort of all weather crossing, bridge or culverts, 
will have to be built. 

Comment : 7. Can county assess the quantity and quality of 
water required by the proposed development? 

Response : See discussion of water in text. 

Comment : Information should be included on State legal requirements 
for land sales. 

Response : The State of Arizona has a Real Estate Code (Arizona 
Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 32, Chapter 20) which is 
administered by the State Real Estate Department. The 
Code licenses, regulates, and supervises the activities 
of brokers and salespersons. 

Before offering subdivided lands (four or more lots) 
for sale the owner, agent, or subdivider is required 
to complete subdivision questionnaire (RE form, sub-1) . 

The Real Estate Commissioner is required to examine 
all subdivisions offered for sale and make public 

his findings. 

Subdivided land connot be sold without provisions for 
legal access to the land. 

ARS Section 9-1141 contains procedures for the sub- 
division of private lands into a townsite. 

Counties obtain their authority for planning and 
zoning under ARS Section 11-801. 



134 



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, cont'd 



Comment : Suggests that perhaps AR&M could not develop the lands 

they presently own because of legal or physical restrictions, 
and that BLM should not agree to the land exchange simply 
because the company indicates it will develop anyway. 

Response ; The statement points out that without the proposed exchange, 
a city like the one originally proposed could not be 
developed. However, nothing prevents the company from 
selling lands to individuals who would then build residences 
without the benefit of an overall development plan. The 
modified 500 homesite proposed development is not contingent 
upon the exchange. Approximately four-fifths of the home- 
sites are on private land and could be developed without 
a land exchange. 

Comment : Need more information as to the State's role in the 

proposed exchange. Does the State approve of the exchange? 

Response : See letters from various State agencies (Appendix F) . 

Comment : The draft overlooks or misinterprets possible adverse 
impacts from the recreation standpoint. 

Response : The sections on Recreation have been revised to reflect 

the information suggested by Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. 
The final statement analyzes the expected impact of 
recreation activities on the environment. It does not 
attempt to explain what types of recreation facilities 
should be provided for future residents if a town is 
built. 

Comment : A number of questions concerning use of the proposed 

lake, area for off-road vehicles, distance from town to 
the golf course, and equestrian facilities, high density 
versus low density development, etc., are raised. 

Response : The revised proposal of AR&M Co. no longer includes a lake 
development (consult map 3 for distances). 

The statement attempts to analyze the impacts of what 
AR&M indicate they plan to do. The entire proposal depends 
on consummation of a land exchange. As a result, it is 
noted that plans for development are quite general at 
this time. If the land exchange is made, then plans 
containing the detail could be required by local planning 
and zoning bodies prior to approving the subdivision. 



135 



Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, cont'd 



Comment : ' Meeting legal requirements should not be considered a 

mitigating measure, and the company's word that it will 
do an environmentally sound job is not good enough. 

Response : Most laws pertaining to developments like the one proposed 
were enacted to assure that environmental damages were 
minimized. In the context of this statement they are dis- 
cussed as measures that would mitigate environmental damages 
expected to occur with such a development. 



136 




United States Department of the Interior 



IN REPLY 
REFER TO: 430 



120.1 



BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240 



JUL 6 K 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAKO MANAGEMENT 



JUL 1 1 7; 



ASSOC. SD 
PCS f~ 



CESJ 



RESOURC 
TECH SE 
IWGM'T SER 
PUB. AFF 
CF 



— T&g f^Y ' ' 



2S. 



ACTION 
" INFO. 

"see me 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
Arizona State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 

We have completed our review of the Planet Townsite Draft Environmental 
Statement (DES 73-18, dated March 29, 1973) which was recently distrib- 
uted by your office. Our comments are as follows: 

We understand that land exchanges involving 9,646 acres of public land 
are proposed to facilitate a private urban development for 7,000 
families in Mohave County, Arizona. The proposed development (Planet 
Townsite) is expected to have a population of 20,560 by the year 2024. 
Facilities normally associated with a community of this size would be 
required. The closest existing major development is Lake Havasu City 
with a current population of 8,000 and a projected population of 60,000. 
Additional development of areas near Planet Townsite can be expected. 
Presumably, the general area will become more urban as time passes. 

We would like to see additional information concerning plans for public 
utilities and services in Chapter I, "Description of Proposal." 
Reviewers ' understanding of the proposal and its potential environ- 
mental impacts would be enhanced by inclusion of more detailed and 
specific information on plans for electrical service; roads and other 
transportation facilities; sites for schools, churches, and other public 
buildings; water requirements, treatment, and distribution plans; col- 
lection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and solid wastes; and flash 
flood protection. 

The last paragraph on page 2 in chapter I is not clear. The third 
sentence begins by indicating that a list of items describing the 
proposed development plan is to follow. However, no list is presented. 
The disclaimers of guarantee that follow indicate that the actual 
development may not conform to the proposal described in the environ- 
mental statement, thereby invalidating the analyses of environmental 
impacts that are presented in subsequent chapters. 



f 







137 
Let's Clean Up America For Our 200th Birthday 



!BBnEEB!BHIBS391E£flB 



The legend of map 3, "Land Exchange Information, Planet Townsite," 
contains a symbol for "Federal lands desired by the State of 
Arizona . . . ." However, the map does not show any tracts bearing 
this symbol. We suggest that the locations of the proposed low- 
density housing developments (1- to 5-acre sites) , mentioned on page 
3, be shown on map 4, "Planned Development," and that better maps 
showing the existing and future road system be included. 

It may be desirable to include some reference to Public Law 90-448 
(Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act) in connection witlr plans 
for interstate land sales by the developer mentioned on page 5. 

In Chapter II, "Description of Environment," the sections on 
"Vegetation" and "Wildlife" do not indicate whether any rare or 
endangered species other than the Yuma Clapper Rail are found in 
the area. We suggest addition of lists of indigenous birds and 
fishes to the list of animal species in appendix A. 

It is suggested that the Lower Colorado Basin Research Laboratory at 
the Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, be requested to review 
and furnish comments on the environmental statement. Its field inves- 
tigations of the Bill Williams River above the Alamo Dam have revealed 
the presence of two previously undescribed species of fish. It has 
not yet made a field study of the river below Alamo Dam, including 
that portion of the river that flows through the proposed townsite. 

The sections on "Recreation" and "Archeology" in chapter II mention 
such historical features as the Old Planet Townsite Ruins, Swansea 
Historic Complex, and various archeological sites. Are any of these 
features listed in the National Register of Historic Places ? 

We note that Chapter III, "The Environmental Impact of the Proposed 
Action," includes no discussion of impacts that would be related to 
providing electrical energy for the Planet Townsite development. 
Electrical energy during the initial 5-year development would be 
obtained from the Arizona Public Service Company substation at Planet 
Ranch (see page 4) . This substation is tapped to the Bureau of 
Reclamation's 69,000-volt Parker-Bagdad Transmission Line, which is 
shown crossing the planned development area on map 4. When the demand 
exceeds the existing capacity, additional capacity must be provided 
by constructing additional transmission facilities or by upgrading 
existing facilities (see page 4) . Either will result in short-term 
degradation of the environment due to construction activities. If 



138 



additional transmission lines are routed into the townsite area 
over new corridors, the effect will be long-lasting; new lines 
would probably consist of permanent overhead construction. The 
attendant access roads for maintenance will be used by the general 
public, thereby increasing off-road damage to the desert (see 
page 70) . 

A similar situation now exists at Lake Havasu City where studies 
indicate that by 1976 the Citizens Utilities Company transmission 
facilities, which supply power to Lake Havasu City from the Bureau 
of Reclamation's Parker Dam, will no longer be adequate. Additional 
electrical energy must be brought into the Lake Havasu area through 
new facilities. 

It is inevitable that additional electrical facilities would have 
to be provided. The new transmission facilities would probably be 
overhead construction due to economic considerations. They should 
be located where the visual impact can be minimized. Distribution 
facilities planned for the Planet Townsite would be underground (see 
page 4). Planning for distribution facilities in the adjacent areas 
should also provide for underground installation so that the overall 
visual impact in the general area is minimized. 

The Bureau of Reclamation Parker-Bagdad 69 kV. transmission line 
right-of-way traversing sees. 9, 17, and 18, T. 11 N. , R. 16 W. (see 
map 4 and page 17) lies within the proposed development. The right- 
of-way is 100 feet wide through the area being considered, and possible 
utilization of this area was not mentioned. It should be pointed out 
that permission must be granted for use of the transmission line 
easement. Permission will not be granted for the erection of any 
structure, drilling of wells, or the parking of house trailers. It 
should be pointed out that the Government's perpetual right of ingress 
and egress over the easement to operate, maintain, or reconstruct the 
transmission line is not to be jeopardized. 

Landscaping on the transmission line right-of-way will be permitted 
provided that trees or shrubs used will not exceed a height of 
approximately 15 feet at maturity. Planting should not be made closer 
than 10 feet to any pole to assure an adequate work area around the. 
structure for routine maintenance or emergency repairs. Tt is recom- 
mended that future lot owners be made aware of existing restrictions 
pertaining to construction within the Parker-Davis transmission line 
easement . 



139 



,■.'■'.■.■.,'. ■.!■::■■.,;..;.'...■ :.,.. ...... 7 ...'■.,■■.■■. „■■■.. 



With reference to the discussion of "Water" in chapter III, we would 
like to emphasize that further depletions by consumptive use on the 
Bill Williams River upstream from the Havasu Intake Channel and Havasu 
Pumping Plant would have an adverse effect upon the quality of water 
available in the Colorado River for diversion by the Central Arizona 
Project. 

Additionally, the exchange of lands could adversely affect long-range 
water resource planning, as contemplated under title II of the 
Colorado River Basin Project Act (Public Law 90-537) for augmentation 
of the flows of the Colorado River. Potential alternative plans were 
presented as plans A, B, and D in the January 1968 reconnaissance 
report, Augmentation of the Colorado River by Desalting of Sea Water . 

The section on "Wildlife" in chapter III suggests that loss of habitat 
resulting from the development would result only in "displacement" of 
wildlife (first full paragraph, page 46). We think that absolute 
reduction of wildlife populations is more probable. It would be useful 
to indicate in this section the types and areas of wildlife habitat 
that would be eliminated or otherwise adversely affected by the 
proposed development. Estimates of the resulting reductions of wild- 
life populations are also desirable, especially for species of special 
interest such as the desert bighorn sheep, the Mexican pronghorn 
antelope, and the Yuma Clapper Rail. 

It is noted that construction and use of roads in the vicinity of the 
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge would have significant adverse effects 
on wildlife numbers. Some description of effects of road construction 
as intended under sec. 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 
1966 (Public Law 89-670) would be useful in assessing these impacts. 

Flash flood hazards should also be described in the statement. We note 
that several washes cross the proposed townsite but there is little 
specific information on how storm water would be diverted. 

In Chapter IV, "Mitigating Measures . . . ," it is stated under "Water" 
that "Water lost from the Colorado system would not be significant 
because the quantity is relatively small and because the water from 
the Bill Williams River is not part of the Colorado River adjudicated 
waters." We disagree with the view that the depletion would not be 
significant. The accumulation of "small" uses has contributed to 
the well-known water supply and quality problems in the Lower Colorado 
River Basin. We consider any reduction in quantity or quality of 



4 
140 



Colorado River system waters to be significant, no matter how small. 
The fact that the source of water for the proposed development would 
be the Bill Williams River does not mitigate the impacts on quantity 
and quality of mainstream flows. 

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental 
statement for the proposed Planet Townsite. 



Sincerely yours, 




Commissioner 



141 



^ l^MH 



Response to Comments 

by 
Bureau of Reclamation 



Comment : Would like additional information on specific plans for 
such things as utilities, schools, roads, sewage plants, 
etc. 

Response : Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. has prepared preliminary- 
plans that are quite general. Subsequent to the issuance 
of the draft statement they revised their proposal. 

Following is a listing of some nearby facilities. Parker 
has two libraries, one of which is also a museum, and 
Lake Havasu City has one library. There is a rest home 
in Blythe and one in Kingman. The school system in 
the area consists of one primary school, one elementary 
school, and two high schools in Parker, and one elementary 
school each in Poston, Bouse, and Parker Dam. In addition, 
Poston has a US Government Project Head Start Program 
and a University of Arizona Agricultural Extension Service. 
There are two elementary schools in Lake Havasu City, 
in addition to a junior high school and a senior high 
school. Lake Havasu City also has a community 
college, a school for gifted children, and courses at 
a University of Arizona Extension Service are available. 



142 



Bureau of Reclamation, cont'd 

Comment : Last paragraph, page 2 of the draft not clear. 

Response ; Text has been revised. 

Comment ; Maps not clear. 
Response : Maps have been revised. 

Comment: Mention Public Law 90-448. 
Response : Text revised. 

Comment : Any rare or endangered wildlife? Add list of birds. 
Response : Appendix A of text revised 

Comment : Have Arizona State University review statement. Two species 
of undescribed fish have been found in Bill Williams River 
above Planet Ranch. 

Response: See Appendix E for list of distribution of draft statement. 
Dr. Minckley of ASU advised BLM by phone on 8/2/73 that two 
different, previously undescribed suckers had been collected 
from waters above the Planet Ranch. Although no studies have 
been conducted below the ranch, it is reasonable to expect 
the occurrence of endemic species of fish in the lower reaches 
as well. 

Dr. Minckley pointed out that very little information has been 
gathered on the flora and fauna of this area and he felt 
studies were needed. 



143 



■ - , ,, - i -'"- ■ij.'-iu- *i-« -■■■{!«■ i i-Jlr-w-'-y '«■■■'■■■ ■■■- 



^-,- .-.-y '.'..■ ■■> V-'j:. ','.'. , :. 1 ''-' 5 ' ■ ■'..■■ , ■■ . "' ; ■ , •.■■■ ; i ^. 



Bureau of Reclamation, cont'd 

Comment : Are certain features listed in the National Register of 
Historic Places? 

Response : At the present time there are no sites listed in the National 
Register of Historic Places and none have been officially 
nominated. Studies are underway to determine if any sites in 
the area would qualify for nomination under EO 11593. 

Comment : Additional electrical facilities will be needed, and their 

construction will result in adverse environmental impacts, 

e.g., off-road vehicle access. 
Response : Powerline construction and associated roads will result in 

adverse impacts when additional power is provided. The text 

has been revised to include this item. . 

Comment : The right-of-way for the existing 69 kv transmission line 

contains restrictions on development that would be allowed on 
the right-of-way. 

Response : AR&M is aware of these restrictions and would plan details of 
the development accordingly. 

Comment : Water use by the planned townsite would have an adverse impact 
on quality of water available for C.A.P. and could adversely 
affect long-range water resource planning. 

Response : The statement recognizes the possibility of lowering water 
quality (pages 42 and 43) . The establishment of a new town 
or any other project requiring water consumption will, of 



144 



HBHH^HUHMm^^^^B^H^MMHaUGSI 



/ 



Bureau of Reclamation, cont'd 

course, have to be considered in the preparation of water 
resource plans. The revised plan reduces the consumptive 
use of water. The water from the Bill Williams River is 
not part of the Colorado River adjudicated waters. 

Comment : The development would result in absolute reduction of wildlife 
population. 

Response : Assuming that the wildlife habitat within the surrounding area, 
as well as the area to be developed, is fully occupied, then 
any reduction in habitat would result in a corresponding re- 
duction of wildlife dependent on such habitat. The text has 
been revised. 

Comment : Estimates of resulting reductions in populations of antelope, 
bighorn sheep and the Yuma clapper rail would be helpful. 

Response : Very little information is available concerning estimates of 
numbers of wildlife in this part of Arizona. The bighorn 
sheep that use the surrounding area probably do not exceed 
50 in number. The proposed development, as well as other de- 
velopment like the Central Arizona Project, will in all 
probability result in the eventual elimination of these animals. 
Antelope populations that will be direcitly or indirectly affected 
by the proposed development are estimated at 50 or less. Like 
the bighorn, the proposed town development is only one of the 
many factors that could result in the complete elimination of 
this species. 

The habitat of the Yuma clapper rail is primarily associated 
with thick growths of tules or cattails that grow on areas 

145 



Bureau of Reclamation, cont'd 

inundated by water. It is not anticipated that the habitat 
for this species will be reduced as a result of the proposed 
town development unless the development results in changes in 
water flows necessary for maintenance of riparian vegetation 
downstream from Planet townsite. 

The biggest threat to survival of this endangered species 
appears to be loss of habitat from channelization of the lower 
Colorado River and resulting losses of marshes and sloughs. It 

is estimated that there are 200 to 500 of these birds along the 
lower Colorado River. Impacts from the townsite would, however, 
be cumulative and could exasperate an already marginal situation, 



Comment : 



Response: 



Description of the effects of road construction would be 

helpful. 

Road construction activities and the associated noise, dust, 
visual scarring will have certain short-term impacts on the 
surrounding environment. The long-term impacts of increased 
travel associated with the proposed townsite are felt to be 
more important in the overall context of this statement. 



Comment. : Flash flood hazards should be- mentioned. 

Response : The possibility of flooding is discussed in the statement. 



Comment : Any reduction of quality or quantity of Colorado River water 

is significant. 
Response: See revised text and Appendix C for additional discussion 

of water. 

146 



CALIFORNIA 

HAWAII 

NEVADA 



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION - REGION tlNQNf Nine 

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36096, San Francisco, Calif . 94102 
May 14, 1973 



IN REPLY REFER TO 

930-00.3 




State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Sir: 

We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 
the proposed Planet Townsite, EIS No. INT DES 73-18, and offer 
the following comments for your consideration: 

1. A discussion of the long-range impacts to the highway 
facilities in the vicinity of the townsite should be included 
in the Final Statement. 

2. As mentioned in the EIS, wildlife and livestock may create 
traffic hazards, especially where wildlife trails cross the 
roadways. Any proposed mitigating actions to reduce this 
potential highway safety hazard should also be discussed in 
the Final EIS. 

We appreciate this opportunity to review the subject Draft 
EIS. 

Sincerely yours, 

R. V. WHITE 

Deputy Regional Administrator 




E. M. WOODI 

Director of Environment & Design 



AHIIOWA STST£ Oft 

P.. U.K3 tf.nrr.r-i ji 



MAY 16 73 



ftS-SOt S3 




PCS / 




rresouKcts 

TCCK SE R 
MGMT SER 


— 


P J3. 1ST 


CF 


ACTION 


INFO. 


SEE tm. 



147 






,,.,■ .;■.■.. ...... 




. ■igxsm&am 



Response to Comments 
by 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Comment : Should include a discussion of long range impacts on the 
highway facilities. 

Response: State Highway 95 runs from Parker north to Lake Havasu City 
and would be expected to receive a majority of the traffic 
from the proposed community. On that portion of the highway 
from Parker north to Osborn Wash, the actualaaverage daily 
trips of motor vehicles in 1970 was 800, and 2800 such trips 
are projected for 1990. On that portion of the highway from 
the Bill Williams River north to Lake Havasu City, the actual 
number of average daily trips for 1971 was 4,100, and 10,500 such 
trips are projected for 1991. The existing highway from Parker 
to Lake Havasu City has a practical capacity of 1,500 vehicles 
per hour per lane and a maximum capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour 
per lane at an approximate speed of 35 miles per hour. The 
prescribed design norms for the traffic capacity of such a 
highway requires a 28-foot highway for traffic from zero to 
300 vehicles per hour; a 34-foot highway for traffic of 300 to 
1,000 vehicles per hour; and a 40-foot highway for traffic from 
1,000 to 5,000 vehicles per hour. The present highway from 
Parker to the Bill Williams River averages 28 feet including 
3 feet shoulders, and from the Bill Williams River to Lake 



148 



Department of Transportation, cont'd 



Havasu City the highway varies from 30 feet to 50 feet 
including 3 foot shoulders. The number of vehicle trips 
per day from the proposed 500 homesite community when 
fully developed is estimated to be 360. See letter 
dated December 17, 1973, from the State Highway Department 
(Appendix F) . « 

Comment : Proposed mitigating measures to reduce potential highway 
safety hazards should be discussed in the final EIS . 

Response : Increased traffic will result in more traffic accidents. 
Mitigating measures such as reduced speed limits and 
better highway design may be proposed. Detailed pro- 
posals have not been made at this time. 



149 



STAN TURLEY 

2SSO E. SOUTHERN AVENUE 
MESA, ARIZONA 65204 

PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 




COMMITTEES 

TRANSPORTATION, CHAIRMAN 
NATURAL °"")""' c - , i /\HU EN VIRONMENT 
APPROPRIATIONS ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



October 4, 1973 



OCT 5 73 
/ 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 

Arizona State Director 

U. S. Bureau of Land Management 

3022 Federal Building 

Phoenix, AZ 85025 



| ASSOC. SO 


! pcs 2- 




REMURCES 


ItUH !,t« _ " 


KGMT SER 


CUB. AFF ~ ' 


CI- ,_ 


ACTION 


INFO. J 




SEE ME 






n '/* 



Re: Planet Townsite SAI 73-80-0024 



Dear Joe: 



The purpose of this letter is to express my deep concern over 
the apparent lack of agreement among state agencies in their 
response to the proposed federal, state and private exchange 
of land involving the Planet Ranch, owned by Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Company. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the 
State Land Department is agreeable to an exchange, the Water 
Commission has expressed some reservation which it probably 
would set aside to be settled at a later time, and that OEPAD 
(formerly DEPAD) is adamant in wanting a number of questions 
resolved before proceeding with land exchanges. 

I am particularly concerned with the negative memorandum 
dated June 11, 1973, from Robert G. Worden of DEPAD and with 
the subsequent memorandum of September 25, 1973, from David 
M. Hamernick of OEPAD with his 14 questions, one of which I 
quote, as follows: 

"14. The last paragraph on page 79 is important. 
It correctly shows the necessity for decisions of 
this nature to be placed within the framework of a 
Statewide land use plan. This is true not only for 
a substitution, but also for the proposal itself. 
If a substitution of this nature should be made 
within the framework of a Statewide land use plan, 
so should the original proposal for the land 
exchange." 

Both Mr. Worden and Mr. Hamernick apparently feel that no 
exchanges should be made until they could be fitted into a 
"Statewide land use plan". May I point out that there is no 



150 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
October 4, 1973 



statewide land use plan, and that there is no assurance as to 
when there will be such a plan. When responsible people present 
a legitimate proposal, they cannot be held in abeyance forever. 
That catchy expression "land use planning", which rolls off 
the tongue like a sweet morsel, is a high-sounding phrase, but 
carries with it at every governmental level some deep implications 
that are going to provide a political battleground for years to 
come. 

In my opinion the issues are much simpler than Mr. Worden or 
Mr. Hamernick would make them, and several of them are not really 
relevant to the proposed land exchange. To me the question at 
hand is simply this: Is it in the best interest of the state 
and the federal government to cooperate with private landowners 
in consolidation of property, and will the ensuing development 
be better than that which will take place without the exchanges? 

The answer is equally simple. As I have reviewed the proposals, 
it seems obvious to me that all interests would be benefited by 
the exchange, when you consider the alternatives for a develop- 
ment of the riparian areas along the Bill Williams River done 
on a piecemeal basis by a variety of developers without the 
benefit of an overall plan. This will probably be the course 
taken if an exchange is not effected soon. The Planet people 
have spent a lot of time and money on this project and cannot 
be faulted for their impatience over the turn of events. 

Obviously, the very legitimate questions posed by Mr. Worden 
and Mr. Hamernick have already been raised and will need to be 
resolved as proposed development of the property takes place. 
In my opinion, however, it certainly is not necessary to resolve 
them before a land exchange is entered into. In fact, if such 
is required, I am sure that the exchange will never materialize 
and that the alternate development will be disastrous to the 
area. 

It is paradoxical that, with all our talk and public concern 
for proper planning, when an organization comes forward with a 
reasonably good plan, there are so many official and self- 
appointed critics around that the result is to shoot down the 
plan before it even gets off the ground, resulting in develop- 
ment without planning. 

I can assure you 1 am getting "cold feet" about placing the 
state in the position of doing much planning, if this is an 
example (as I expect it is) of the bureaucratic bungling that 
will accompany development proposals. It may well be that the 
best results will come from the continuation of private interests 



151 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
October 4, 1973 



putting their own money into plans approved by the "most local" 
level of government, and keep the state out of planning as 
much as possible. 

I urge you to move forward as rapidly as possible in working 
out an exchange that is to the benefit of all parties concerned, 
The attendant problems will still be there and can be resolved 
as time goes on. 

My apologies for going to such great lengths to make my point, 
but I feel rather strongly about this matter. 

Sincerely yours, 




' Stan Turle 



ST : i j s 

cc : Governor Jack Williams 

President William C. Jacquin, Senate 

Speaker Stan Akers, House of Representatives 

Senator Jim Mack, Chairman, Natural Resources Committee 

Representative Bill Lewis, Chairman, Natural Resources 

Committee 
Mr. Andy Bettwy, State Land Commissioner 
Mr. Wes Steiner, Executive Director, Water Commission 
Mr. Robert G. Worden, Executive Director, OEPAD 
Mr. Walter Smith, Executive Vice President, Arizona 

Ranch and Metals Company 
Mr. Frank C. Brophy, Jr., Ryley, Carlock & Ralston 



152 



Response to Comments 
by 
Hon. Stan Turley, Arizona State Senate 



See following letter from Arizona State Director, BLM, dated 
October 10, 1973 



153 




IN REPLY REFER TO 



United States Department of the Interior 

1792/A 6930 CI 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (910) 

State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



October 10, 1973 

Hon. Stan Turley 
Arizona State Senate 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 

Dear Mr. Turley: 

I thank you for your letter of October 4, commenting on the proposed 
Federal-State-private exchange of lands involved in the Planet Ranch. 

This exchange proposal was initiated several years ago by the Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Company who desire to block up their private land 
holdings in the Planet Ranch area for development of a new town. The 
State Land Commission has filed an exchange application for Federal 
lands that lie on the border of the proposed townsite in order to 
obtain potential high value lands for the benefit of the State School 
Trust fund. The Mohave County Board of Supervisors supported the pro- 
posed exchanges and new town development. 

The proposed land exchanges would have certain benefits for the Federal 
Government. The Arizona Ranch and Metals Company owns several parcels 
of land along the Bill Williams River Valley which have important wild- 
life values. One of these tracts would make a valuable addition to the 
Lake Havasu National Wildlife Refuge. The Arizona Ranch and Metals 
Company can proceed with development of their private lands whether or 
not an exchange is made. There are about 3900 acres of Federal lands 
intermingled and surrounded by State and private lands which would be 
isolated if urban development proceeds without the exchange. We there- 
fore are willing to consider the proposal to consolidate the private 
State, and Federal lands in the vicinity. 

Our draft environmental statement was prepared to analyze the environ- 
mental impact of the proposal in accordance with the National Environ- 
mental Policy Act. It is not the intent or responsibility of the Bureau 
of Land Management to determine whether a townsite should be developed 
at this location. This decision rests with local governmental planning 
and zoning authorities. 



154 



We have received a number of comments from interested agencies, 
organizations, and individuals. We plan to proceed with the 
preparation of the final environmental statement. After completion 
of the statement, a decision concerning the proposed exchanges will 
be made. 

We appreciate receiving your comments, and they will be considered 
prior to reaching a decision on the proposed exchanges. 

Sincerely, 



// Joe T.^Fallini 



// St 



State Director 



155 



^H^^^H^^ 



>tfm 




JACK WILLIAMS 

GOVERNOR 



Office of the Governor 

STATE HOUSE 

Phoenix, Arizona esoo7 



IN REPLY 
REFER TO: 



October 22, 1973 



The Honorable Stan Turley 
Arizona State Senator 
2650 E. Southern Avenue 
Mesa, Arizona 85204 

Dear Stan: 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
OU. L/.MD MANAGEMENT 



OCT 2 473 

CD 


ASSOC. SD 




PCS 


_ L— ' 


RESOURCES 


3f "A 


TcOH SER 


MOM'T SER 
PUB. AFF 






CF 


ACTION 


" " INK). 


aJLLiai — 


SEE ME 



I have read your letter of October 4, 1973 to Mr. Joi 
concerning the Planet Townsite. I am responding to your letter 
because it appears that a number of misconceptions exist regard- 
ing the comment and review procedures that were followed, and 
the issues that were raised. The draft environmental impact 
statement regarding the Planet Ranch Proposal was prepared by 
the Bureau of Land Management in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Mr. Fallini issued the draft 
environmental impact statement in order to elicit comment from 
agencies of state government and other interested parties. He 
now has these comments and is preparing a final statement. 
When the final environmental statement is ready, he will send 
copies to the state agencies and others who have commented or 
are interested. Also, the statement will be sent to Washington 
for staffing at the Department of Interior and the Environmental 
Protection Agency. 

The important point in this context is that the environmental 
impact statement is not a decision-making document. We have 
discussed this point with Mr. Fallini, and he is equally dis- 
tressed that a number of people have the idea that the comment 
and review process of the environmental impact statement has 
hvan viewed am a decision-roaking procfm* with respect to the 
land exchange. Actually, the land exchange decision will be 
made at a later date after the final environmental impact state- 
ment is completed. Incidentially, the decision for the land 
exchange will be made by Mr. Joe Fallini of the Arizona Office 
of BLM if the total appraisal value of the land involved is less 
than $250, 000. If the appraisal is greater than that amount, 
the decision will be made in Washington. 



156 



■MBMMtmwiTOii-.wrauma'iim^.-a' 



The Honorable Stan Turley 

October 22, 1973 

-2- 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in conjunction with the 
Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 as implemented by the Office 
of Management and Budget Circular A-95, provide for a specified state 
role with regard to such statements. The state is required to review 
and comment on such documents through a procedure established by 
the Governor. In Arizona, I have established the State Programming 
and Coordinating Committee for Federal Programs to assist in this 
review. I have designated the Office of Economic Planning and 
Development as the State Clearinghouse with staff responsibilities 
for the procedure. I regard the Clearinghouse activities as very 
important in our efforts to determine the impact of federal actions 
on our state. 

The established procedures were followed in the review of the environ- 
mental impact statement regarding the Planet Ranch proposal. The 
Office of Economic Planning and Development which is part of my 
office had two major responsibilities. First, as the State Clearinghouse 
it was responsible for causing the review of the draft environmental 
impact statement by appropriate state agencies. Secondly, as the 
planning staff of my office it had a responsibility to comment on the 
proposal as did the other state agencies. Both of these responsibilities 
were fulfilled. The results of the review were transmitted to Mr. 
Fallini on June 11. Ordinarily this action would have ended the state's 
involvement. However, at the request of the Arizona Ranch and 
Metals Company a meeting of interested parties was held to discuss 
the draft environmental impact statement and to provide further 
comment by the state agencies that had reviewed the draft statement. 
The review revealed that the State Land Department favored the land 
exchange. The Arizona Power Authority indicated no objection to the 
statement. Four state agencies had no comment. Questions and 
concerns were raised by the Water Commission, the Arizona Outdoor 
Recreation Coordinating Commission, the Department of Health, 
the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Office of Economic 
Planning and Development. In addition, and apart from the Clearing- 
house Procedure, the cognizant Regional Council of Governments as 
well as the League of Arizona Cities and Towns had negative comments 
with respect to the draft environmental statement. Local non-govern- 
mental agencies such as the Arizona Conservation Council and the 
Arizona Wildlife Federation also indicated some objections to the 
draft environmental statement. 

I can assure you that my Office of Economic Planning and Development 



157 



The Honorable Stan Turley 

October 22, 1973 

-3- 

is not adamantly against the draft environmental statement or the proposed 
land exchange. This office and other agencies commenting on the draft 
environmental impact statement were attempting to be helpful and to 
raise those questions and issues involving the Arizona environment. 
BLM will take as much of the material as may be germane and useful in 
developing its final impact statement. Here again, I must mention that 
the decision regarding the land exchange will be made only after the final 
impact statement is completed. 

I believe we should remember that: There was no plan presented with 
the draft environmental impact statement; those officials who did raise 
questions and comment did so with respect to the draft environmental 
impact statement; none of the officials who commented on the draft 
statement are self appointed critics. They were conducting an environ- 
mental review in accordance with established Clearinghouse Procedures 
and on the basis of their various areas of responsibility. BLM should 
find these various comments of some usefulness when it puts together 
the final environmental impact statement. 

In summary, five state agencies, the cognizant Regional Council of 
Governments, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and two local 
non-governmental agencies raised questions and had critical comments 
in regard to the draft environmental statement affecting their areas of 
concern in the State of Arizona. However, it appears that some of 
their comments relate to the decision-making process of the land 
exchange itself and may have gone beyond what is required during the 
staffing of an environmental impact statement. On this point, I am 
informing Mr. Fallini that any comments that he received completely 
outside the parameters of the environmental impact statement are not 
appropriate at this time. When the final impact statement is avail- 
able and we are at a decision point, there will be adequate opportunity 
to address the question of the land exchange in writing and through 
public hearings. 

I thank you for the effort that you put forth in writing about this subject 
because it is important. If there needs to be further discussion on 
this subject or if misunderstandings continue, please let me kncrw. 



Sinter \ly yours, 



Williams 




JW:sg 

158 



M^MI^UnHajmaBHBHHHHEH 



The Honorable Stan Turley 

October 22, 1973 

-4- 



cc: President William C. Jacquin, Senate 

Speaker Stan Akers, House of Representatives 
Senator Jim Mack, Chairman, Natural Resources Committee 
Representative Bill Lewis, Chairman, Natural Resources Committee 
Mr. Andrew Bettwy, State Land Commissioner 

Mr. Wesley Steiner, Executive Director, Arizona Water Commission 
Mr. Robert G. Worden, Executive Director, OEPAD 
Mr. Walter Smith, Executive Vice-President, Arizona Ranch and 
Metals Company 

r. Frank C. Brophy, Jr. , Ryley, Carlock and Ralston 
Mr. Joe Fallini. Phoenix Office, Bureau of Land Management 

*(Thank you for your assistance to Frank Sackton in clarifying this issue. 
As I have noted in this letter, any comments that you received on your 
draft environmental statement outside the parameters of the environ- 
mental questions should be held in abeyance until the decision-making 
process. ) 

JW 




159 



Response to Comments 
by 
Hon. Jack Williams, Governor of Arizona 



This letter was directed to the Hon. Stan Turley, Arizona State 
Senator, and is included here for additional information. 



160 



HMaBHnaaEnMraHHni^^H^^H 



mwiMiiiniiwr ih,M "™™Hinin 



ARIZONA 




DEPARTMENT OF 

ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 



June 11, 1973 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Re: Plantet Townsite - Draft Environmental Statement 
State Application Identifier: 7 3-80-0024 



AniZONA STATE OFFJCf 
B., U.IJO MANAGEMENT 

M 1 * 73 



=c 


/ 


ASSOC. SD 


PCS 


RESOURCES 


TECH SER 




MGM'T SER 




PJB. AFF 


CF 




AC 1 ION 






sn ME 



Dear Mr. Fallini: 

The Arizona State Clearinghouse has received and reviewed the Planet 
Townsite - Draft Environmental Statement. This review has generated 
several responses, copies of which are attached. As you will note, many 
of the review agencies have raised questions of a substantial nature re- 
garding this proposal which should be considered before completing this 
land exchange. 

Please contact me if the Clearinghouse can be of further assistance in 
resolving these issues. 



Sincerely yours, /} 





Dennis A. Davis, Executive Secretary 

for Federal Programs 

DAD:cr 

encl 



161 






,4tf DEPARTMENT OF 



v/ 



%^ Economic Planning and development 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

Da«.:e: April 16, 197 J 

TO: Mr. John Dickinson 

Department of Economic Security- 
Post Office Box 6123 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 



CI cnrinphouse St?./£ Conl&c!:: M:*y. ComJt&ucti LaMonica 



- - . ^^ 



r.'.\ivoni*Acai;"-l Stt*leroer*f: flsvie' 



Applicant: Bureau o.f L&Ji- 



a yj. : .:>w i;v.:r»Ciii. 



Pro ice 



P J •&>■>(*«; Towisito ■ Dr;iit ' 



£x.v\.v;«m^tinMS.i 






/ :■ - - .< 



).*:■. v;C\V ti'-G 
i", c-r-j ;- . J'u " 






V '../ . 



: ■:: sujjn?.f: oc row. 



ftgc^xtrK i^.va ■■'■ 

fi'rarr'^; ■:. 
i.Lflo no-f- ;•. etgfl contact within youc agency 



" I'OPOr.*'. 1 tt-j it .'a/j"«cfs IMC I'l./ii'i/? &u:\ T 



revi;:"' arid 
tv\z :• A- 93. Please 



! v.: i* •. 



[cfi ir- rs quired. i 7 .c:i •:••:• r<';':urr jijie c^a^K 



f •- -1 



■>~ '': !.■)*■:. C'.' ',;'. i 



«/.. 



nnr»v. s i:: 



i ( 
1 i 



ot ;o '■:-'■ i ;c 



i t 



. •- 1 s I- '. * - - " 



'~\ 



I 






APR 20 1973 

ST aT E CLEARlftunUusc. 
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 

r'"'.V:; , ::c Z: development 

r.iYi'urv i»i'or*"V5#1:jru\, ov 



An 



' \ A 



; ^- v -' -u 7 ^- ----- -$ 



/ 7 



162 / 



^v.t,n«'V.i /.»••«.! iU-vi 

Aj;C'.'-fy 'y ; t i .:':■ U 1. 



COPY 



ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT 



June 4, 1973 



Mr. Joe Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 65025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 

Our Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement 
for tho proposed Planet Townsite* in Mohave County, Arizona. In 
view of the potential impsxt that the development will have on wildlife 
habitat in the area, we wish to'expre3S reservations on the desirability 
of the proposed land exchange. 

Several species of wildlife already having a precarious existence 
could possibly be faced with an even more desperate situation with the 
develooment. The Yuma clapper rail, an endangered bird species, 
could have its numbers reduced further if the streamaidc vegetation 
along the Bill Williams River is reduced or modified. Projected 
human disturbance to desert bighorn 3heep would have an undesirable 
effect on this unique ungulate. Additional lana development in this 
portion of southern Mohave County would, in all probability, result 
in the elimination of the local population oi Mexican pronghorn antelope. 
The proposed townsite also harbors good numbers of Gambel's quail, 
white wing doves, mourning doves, ana a limited population of desert 
mule deer. These species would not De "displaced, ! as anticipated in 
the statement summary, but would, in reality, be removed. 



* A Draft Environmental Statement, Planet Townsite , April 1973. 



163 



/ 



IHP ITO '""''Tni™«mMBPWIM^™ 



Mr. Joe Fallini - 2 • June 4, 1973 



WetlanHp rrc»>iv<<? through the exchange wouH bo modified 
substantially through water consumption associated with the intcn- 
eiv* development. In addition, a substantial portion of the wildlife 
habitat preservation is contingent upon uno of the land as d^ei-jnated 
by th« private land owner. Should the subdivision be successful, it 
is unreasonable to believe the wildlife areas would remain undeveloped. 

We feel the public interest is best served by the no project - 
alternative aad the Bureau of Land ^/jjiagemtnt uhould not exchange 
lands which will encourage development to the detriment of the adjacent 
public-owned land and resources. 



Sincerely, 

Robert A. Jantzen, Director 
RAJ:lw 



bec: Department of Economic Planning 
and Development 



! . ■ \ 



t 



! '. 



. i 



'*'•!',■ •■ . ►•<: 



164 



Response to Comments 
by 
The Arizon a Game and Fish Department 

Comment ; Points out concern for wildlife species already having a 
precarious existence. Also that certain species would be 
removed rather than displaced. 

Response : Text has been revised. 

Comment : Wetlands to be acquired by the Federal Government would be 
modified because of water use by the proposed town. 



Response : This possibility has been noted and text revised. See 
Appendix J. 



Comment: if subdivision is successful, it is unreasonable to expect 
wildlife areas would remain undeveloped. 

Response : xhe statement recognizes the continuing impact on wildlife 
using lands adjacent to the development. 



Comment: 



BLM should not proceed with exchange. 



R esponse : ^ decision on the proposed exchange will not be made until 
after completion of this statement. 



165 



Arizona 



:o: 



J 






;, .,fs.\ ', r 




DEPARTMENT OF &* ,' 

ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 



3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE -SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

/ Date: April 16, 1973 



Dr. Loui« C. Kossuth, Commissioner 
Department of Health / 

1624 West Adams Street, Third Floor 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 






Ifl^fE 



APR 1 7 1973 
STATE DEPT. OF H£<VTH 

OrC. 0/ CG?.!M!3S;0.\fiN 
PHOM* ■ Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Mrs. Constance LaMoflica ^giT/^ 

/' # 

SUBJCCT: Environmental Statement Review 

/ 
Applicant: Bureau of Land [Management 

/ 
Project Title: /Placet Tow&eite - Draft Environmental 
/Statement (DES 73 18) 
/ 




State A opli cation identifier: 

" / 



/ 



V3- 80- 007.4 



j-i. '.: u ij v 



a Draft Environmental Statement is attached for your eeview and 
comment -in accordanci with requirement* of Oiv!?3 Circular A-9i>. Please 
review the proposal a? it affects the plans and programs of your agency and 
register your resp-rmsybelow. Also note a staff contact within pur agency 
in cast farther confutation is required. 3j!le^^ - re^^tM8j^Tyy>le^ed 
('••rj:' 1 within Cfttcn Q5J nrvr of vcur receipt of this request. 



; \ No comment f.r. the above pvojocv 
f 1 proposal i.;'; tup ported as writteii. 
Comment* &.i*e j'ttwehed. 



Please contact the Cleavinglio».\*e should von desire farther information, o 
need t riclilional time for X'cWew. 



Review Ajrencv Sts.ff Contact 



".£ V >••> 



- - r$ 




166 



Autjioviaed Review 
A i\ c ; > e y S i j ;. i J '■■ t u r c 



/ 



/ 
/ 

/ 



/ 



Planet Towns ite - Draft Environmental Statement 

73-80-0024 



COMMENTS 



1. The proposed Planet Townsite will be composed of mainly large acreage 
lots (over one acre) that are not required to be furnished with water. 
A 'dry lot' is undesirable for sanitation purposes, and many 'dry lots' 
would probably be sold to unsuspecting people since 80 percent of the 
land would be for interstate sales. 

2. The expected water quality (page 12) may be hard to find. The recom- 
mended total dissolved solids content of water is 250 ppm as compared to 
the expected quality of 271-369 ppm. Reused water for irrigation con- 
tains a high dissolved solids content and would probably increase the 
dissolved solids content of the ground water. The optimum fluoride con- 
centration for drinking water in the area is 0.7 ppm and the mandatory 
rejection limit for drinking water is 1.4 ppm. the fluoride content of 
well water for towns close to the proposed towns fte is 4-5 ppm (for 
Parker, Bouse and Havasu Springs Resort). \ .•--•- 



... V 



167 



Response to Comments 

by 
Arizona State Department of Health 

Comment : Indicates that "dry lots" are undesirable for sanitation 

purposes and expresses concern that 80 percent of the land 
would be sold to unsuspecting people through interstate 
sales. 

Response : Interstate sales are regulated by Public Law 90-448. ASR&M 
indicates that all lots will be provided with water. 

Comment : Presents data concerning water quality and suggests that the 
expected water quality may be hard to find. 

Response : See Appendix J and further discussion in text. 



168 



■ uami 



/•■"'Ji 




\/ 



TELEPHONE 

(802) 271-4183 



IBIO WEST ADAMS STREET 
PHOENIX. ARIZONA 



MAIL ADDRESS 

P. O. Box 8894 
Phocnix. Arizona 
zone no. asoos 



May 2, 1973 



Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

Clearinghouse 

3003 North Central Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 



Dear Mrs. LaMonica; 



Suite 1704 



Subject: Planet Townsite - Draft 

Environmental Statement (DES 72 18) 

73-Z0- 00*1 



By letter of April 16, 1973, you transmitted for review the above 
environmental statement. Included in this statement is a proposal by 
the Bureau of Land Management to exchange certain lands with the Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Company in the vicinity of Parker Dam, Arizona. 

I would like to point out that certain land parcels of the proposed 
exchange are included in a three year preliminary permit granted to the 
Arizona Power Authority on December 6, 1972, by the Federal Power 
Commission for the study of a proposed pumped storage project at Lake 
Havasu. 

The Authority does not, however, object to the land exchanges as 
delineated in the above environmental statement., The land parcels of 
the proposed exchange that are included in the Authority's F.P.C. permit 
are to be transferred from the Arizona Ranch and Metals Company to the 
Bureau of Land Management. It is our understanding that the Authority's 
F.P.C. permit once filed, will reserve B.L.M. lands from entry as long 
as the permit remains in effect. 

Sincerely yours, 

ARIZONA POWER AUTHORITY 



LSOrmh 




X4 



L. S. Ormsby / 



' /£) Acting Administrator 






°%f°oSo 169 



Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona Power Authority 



Comments : Arizona Power Authority has a preliminary permit for the 
study of a proposed pumped storage project. The permit 
covers certain private lands to be conveyed to the 
Federal Government in the proposed exchange. 

Response : The preliminary permit granted to Arizona Power Authority 
by the Federal Power Commission was surrendered during 
December 1974. 



170 



7 



GEORGE E. LEONARD 
CHAIRMAN 

JOHN S. HOOPES 

VICE-CHAIRMAN 

WESLEY E. STEINER 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND 
STATE WATER ENGINEER 




< Artsma ptater Cmmmssum 



222 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 800 

ijjJttoenue, Arizona 85004 

TELEPHONE (S02) 238-7361 

May 2, 1973 



MEMBERS 

PETER BIANCO 
LINTON CLARIDGE 
DAVID R. GIPE 
DOUGLAS J. WALL 
WILLIAM H. WHEELER 

EXOFFICIO MEMBERS 

ANDREW L. BETTWY 
MARSHALL HUMPHREY 




Mrs. Constance LaMonica 
Department of Economic Planning 

and Development 
3003 North Central, Suite 170*+ 
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Dear Mrs. LaMonica: 



lf «5 1973 

«?StWs ng 



As requested we have reviewed the Draft Environ- 
mental Statement for the Planet Townsite (73-80-002 1 +) . 

We find the draft less than satisfactory in sev- 
eral areas. Of principal concern is the indefinite nature 
of the proposed action. 

First, the three way land exchange is not well des- 
cribed. For instance, on map 3 the federal lands desired 
by the state do not appear on the map, although they are 
indicated in the legend. The legend indicates 96U-6.37 acres 
of federal land are to be exchanged into private ownership, 
but only about 5,000 acres are delineated on the map. Worse 
yet, the numbers on the map and those in the text do not seem 
to agree. 

Second, the draft indicates that the lands traded 
to the state will be sold for development at a later date, 
but it does not include this subsequent action in the analysis 
of the impact of the proposed exchanges. This exchange is 
of significance as it would increase the development by 
about one third, and the sale seems as definite as the devel- 
opment of the remainder of the exchanged land. 

Third, the draft raises serious questions of ade- 
quacy with the remark that "...there is no guarantee that 
this is the kind of development that would occur...". This 
is our most serious concern — in the face of this comment the 
only thing about the proposed action of which one can be 
certain is that 10,000 to 20,000 acres of ranch and desert 
lands will be urbanized. Thus we recommend recasting the 



171 



Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

Page 2 

May 2, 1973 

statement to discuss the extreme possibilities — the worst, 
and the best. As the subject draft now describes something 
near the best it is inadequate in describing the impact of 
the exchange. 

Of lesser importance is the fact that the subject 
draft provides inadequate description of the water resources 
and the flood hazards of the area. Appending the referen- 
ced report by Samuel .F. Turner may suffice as quantitation 
of the water supply, but then again it may not. Considering 
that development of the area, once exchanged, may be preclu- 
ded by state and local review of the development's water 
supply adequacy, it would be wisest to extensively explore 
the water supplies vis a vis possible uses before consummating 
the proposed federal action. Local flood zoning may also 
alter the developer's plans and should therefore be considered 
in more detail before effecting the exchange. 

Sincerely, 

7a 




tesleyy E. Steiner 
Executive Director 



172 



Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona Water Commission 

Comments : Draft and maps not adequate. 

Response : Maps have been revised. 

Comments : Impact of eventually developing State lands adjacent 
to private lands not analyzed. 

Response : The State of Arizona is proposing to retain certain 
lands for later development after the proposed town 
development is complete. Since there are so many uncer- 
tainties involved in the proposed development, all that 
can be done at this time is to acknowledge that if the 
town becomes bigger, the impacts will be greater. 

Comment : Description of water resources and flood hazards 

inadequate. After the exchange, development may be 
precluded by State and local review of water supply 
adequacy or local flood zoning. 

Response : Studies made by Turner in 1962 and Manera & Associates, Inc. 
in 1971 indicate that there is sufficient water to support 
the proposed 7,000 homesite development. The consumptive 
use of water will be reduced significantly with the 500 
homesite development. No structural development is planned 
in flood plains. 



173 



. .. .. ...... .:-■...■ -..:.__.,_-. '.-. ■■; .—,'L. I:, :■:-.,.. ■„.■__.■ . .., ,.-^ .(■...;.. ... - ■ • ■--..'■..■.■.., ..j_:-..„ ... 



Arizona ffrf^f\ department of 

^jp 1 ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

Date: Aprii^lb,. 1 973 - -- V D 
TO: Mr. J. Fred Talley, Commissioner wutC |>£aj t-Sluie Df»nf 

Real Estate Department 

2801 North 15th Avenue f-.r'\ ] |CJ?o 

Phoenix, Arizona 85007 CHECKro BV 

D OKio U (J^r" UAi£ 

D WRITE LETTER RS 
FROM; Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

SUBJECT: Environmental Statement Review 

Applicant: Bureau of Land Management 

Project Title; Planet Townsite - Draft Environmental 
Statement (DES 73 1 8) 

■ State Application Identifier: 73-S0-0024 



A copy of a Draft Environmental Statement is attached for your review and 
comment in accordance with requirements of OMB Circular A-95. Plea.se 
review the propose: i at it affects the plan:; and programs of your agency and 
register your response below. Also note a staff contact within your agency 
in case further consultation is required. P lease r etu rn this completed 






form within fi freer.- (\5) fevs o f you r receip t of this rogue fit. 



f ! No comment on the above project. U A? If) 



'%/» 



Q Proposal is Pi.1p7jort.ed as written. Opp^ARCN ^ ^ 

fx'j Comments xxxxxotxxxxx. Very Interesting. %% ^ 0^ c-J^'^A'r 



-C 



Please contact the Clearinghouse should you desire further information, or 
.need additional time for review. 

Review Agency Staff Contact _ F !_ ^_i_? ett Y^ r ?^ > ^t^ 



," ' ■' ' ' "- " ',. ' _ V frl**+"*\ _ I wVWiCi^^Coiranissioner 

/7r . / .: : - ',,-tts ; : ''.':■■.'- 





Au t) 1 r i « e < L^f* ■.;■. -, ,. A\ v 
Agency SvSt ^jurj 



174 



I 



Jack Williams 
Governor 



Commissioners 

Dennis McCarthy 

Chairman 

Gene C. Reid 

Vice Chairman 

Robert A. Jantzen 

Secretary 






4433 N. 19th Avenue, Suite 203 

Phoenix, Arizona 85015 

(602) 271-5013 



Staff 

Roland H. Sharer 

Liaison Officer 

& 

Project Director 

Michael H. Peterson 

Planning Officer 

Lyle A. Bair 

Recreation Planning 

Coordinator 



May 29, 1973 



%um 



Mrso Constance LaMonica 

State Clearinghouse 

3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1704 

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Dear Connie: 



JWj 




1973 



My apologies for taking so long to review and return comments on the 
Planet Townsite - Draft Environmental Statement (DES 73 18). I have been 
trying to gather enough information so that I may respond in a credible 
manner. It appears that the environmental impact statement is a very 
technically complete document and our comments are not addressed to the 
technicalities of the document itself, but to the land exchange and the 
townsite. 

It seems to me that establishing a new city in this area of the State 
may not be justifiable or desirable at this point in time. It has been only 
recently that the Department of Economic Planning and Development has 
completed a study on remote subdivisions in Arizona. This study pointed out 
some rather severe land use problems and conflicts that have come about as a 
result of this subdivision overdevelopment. The report indicates that there 
are existing developments which could very easily accommodate five million 
people, on paper at least D I have real concern that the Planet Townsite 
proposal could very realistically compound this already critical problem in 
Arizona. 

Another area of concern is that the legislature has just recently 
established an office of Land Use Planning in the Governor's Office. It 
would seem that this being the case, review of this proposed townsite should 
be studied by the Land Use Planning Office immediately. No decisions should 
be made by anyone at any level of government prior to the State Land Use 
Planning Office being involved in this project. The costs of services alone 
to be provided by such a development have not begun to be determined. 
Therefore, we can not support this development at this time nor support the 
proposed land exchanges until the State Land Use Planning Office has become 
involved . 



Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matt 



175 




Land H. Sharer 
State Liaison Officer 




Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona Outdoor Recreation Coordinating Commission 

Comment : Comments directed toward need for city. Cites DEPAD 

study and expresses concern that the proposed develop- 
ment would compound an already critical problem in 
Arizona. 

Response : The study mentioned is contained in Appendix G. 

Comment ; Points out that State Legislature recently established 
an office and no decision should be made until this 
office has studied the proposal. 

Response ; Copies of the draft EIS were sent to the State Clearing- 
house, but no response was received from the Office of 
Land Use Planning. 

A commission has been established to recommend legis- 
lation and guidelines for State land use planning. 
To date no comprehensive land use planning legislation 
has been enacted. 

Comment: Costs of services needed for the development have not 
yet been determined. 

Response : Detailed plans have not been developed for the pro- 
posed townsite. Subsequent to the issuance of the 
draft statement Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. revised 
their proposal and reduced the size of the proposed 
townsite. 



176 




Arizona ff/p^m department of 

ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

Date: April 16, 1973 
TO: Department of Economic Planning 
and Development 
3003 North Central Avenue, Suite 1704 
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 



FROM: Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

SUBJECT: Environmental Statement Review 

Applicant: Bureau of Land Management 

Project Title: Planet Townsile - Draft Environmental 
Statement (DES 73 18) 

State Application Identifier: 73 -80 -0024 



A copy of a Draft Environmental Statement is attached for your review and 
comment hi accordance with requirements of OMB Circular A-95, Please 
review the proposal as it affects the plans and programs of your agency and 
register yew response below. Also note a staff contact within your agency 
in case further co'ibulta ! ;ion i-> required. Plea.Be return this- com plied 
form wit'" hi llflecn [35] days of your receipt of this requ est. 



I S No comment on <:ho above projee':, 

i ' 

! pfor-osal ic r.upwo :••■>■• d a.s v.*r;.Uen. 
Cc-nvoeuts are p.tt?.chcd. 



Ple?..'i'.- ctmluf.! (he Clf-.ii < iij&.housfi cbould you desire further information, or 

nocJ, 3 dditior..? 1 time :•'. r ;. i/view. 



.Review Agency Scsff C'o:ita< 



•'•V.V, c 



i :. ! 



AU'liOJ'i/ieci i.\'" vi ev»' 
Ai'c!u;v Signature 



177 



ARIZONA 




DEPARTMENT OF 



ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 



3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

Arizona State Clearinghouse 

FROM: Robert G. Worden 

Department of Economic Planning and Developmen 

SUBJECT: Planet Townsite - Draft Environmental Statement 
State Application Identifier; 73-80-0024 

DATE: June 11, 1973 




The staff of the Department of Economic Planning and Development has 
reviewed the Planet Townsite Draft Environmental Statement. 

The statement does not appear adequate for the following reasons; 

1. It fails to demonstrate that sufficient habitat is available or 
will remain to accommodate important displaced wildlife 
species. 

2. It indicates that water quality will deteriorate but does not 
mention the adverse effect this would have upon downstream 
water users and the natural environment itself. 

3. It discusses what are termed "mitigating measures" but, with 
the exception of underground electric distribution lines, it is 
evident that the visual scene will be changed dramatically. 

4. The basic proposal indicates that the land would be subdivided. 
However, detailed maps descriptive of how the land develop- 
ment would be controlled, how services would be provided, 
how open space areas would be preserved, etc. are not 
provided. Further, the statement implies that the develop- 
ment would be a satellite community to Lake Havasu City. 
Yet, there does not appear to be any guarantee of adequate 
road access to the city. The environmental statement is 
based primarily upon assumptions and not guarantees. 



178 



RBBN 



Mrs. Constance LaMonica 
Memorandum 
June- 11, 1973 
Page 2 

5, A fundamental question also exists as to whether it is 

desirable to encourage a new community in this region of 
Arizona. There is a real concern whether the benefits to 
the citizens of Arizona would be sufficient to offset what 
appears to be extensive environmental degradation. In 
addition, it seems -^inadvisable for government to encourage 
land subdividing and occupancy in a county with a large 
amount of acreage already subdivided and experiencing a 
very slow absorption rate. Generally speaking, government 
services can be provided more efficiently at lower cost when 
the people locate in proximity to urban clusters and service 
centers. This proposal tends to encourage population dis- 
persal. 

It is the opinion of this Department that the Planet Ranch proposal needs to 
be placed in the context of a state land use plan. In May of 1973, the Arizona 
State Legislature authorized preparation of such a land use plan and imple- 
mentation of this directive has just begun. It would seem advisable that the 
proposed action be deferred until such a plan is underway. In addition, the 
State Land Department is conducting a Colorado River Land Study, the 
result of which will undoubtedly have impact on this area. 

In the interim, it might be advisable for the proposal to be examined using 
the techniques developed by the Arizona Trade-Off Model (ATOM). This 
might assist in preparing a more complete environmental evaluation. 

State and Federal Governments can, of course, be of assistance in assembling 
land packages for many purposes which are beneficial to all parties. However, 
in the case of this proposal, the framework for such an analysis is lacking. 

Therefore, we request that the Bureau of Land Management delay consummat- 
ing this proposal until it can be more carefully evaluated in relation to other ■ 
state concerns. 



179 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Development 

Comment : Statement is not adequate because: 

1. Does not prove sufficient habitat is available to accom- 
modate displaced wildlife. 
Response : The statement has been revised to indicate that wildlife will 

not be displaced but lost. Revised text and comments on letter 

from Bureau of Reclamation (Appendix F) . 

Comment : 2. Statement indicates water quality will deteriorate but 

does not point out effects this will have on downstream 

water users. 

Response : The lack of knowledge concerning impacts is noted in the 
revised text. 

Comment : 3. visual scene will be changed. 

Response : The proposed development would alter present use, and changes 
in the visual scene would occur. 

Comment : 4. Statement is based on assumptions, not guarantees. 
Response : See letter from Ryley, Carlock & Ralston, Attorneys for 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. (Appendix F) . 

Comment : 5. Question as to benefits of proposal to citizens of Arizona 
to offset environmental degradation. Cost is less If 
people locate close to urban centers. 



180 



iHHOiBUHHHHiBHiiHH^B^HHBHRHHHBHHaBUHHHHIHHBH ...'' 



Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Development , cont'd 

Response : This statement does not attempt to compare benefits to Arizona 
against the impacts of the proposal on the environment of the 
area. The purpose of this statement is to provide the decision- 
maker (State Director of BLM in Arizona) with the facts as to 
what impacts on the environment can be anticipated if he 
selects the proposed course of action or one of the alternatives. 

At this time the State of Arizona does not have a statewide land 
use plan and no recognized position as to whether the State 
supports population dispersion or concentration around exist- 
ing population centers. 

BLM is not attempting to determine whether development should 
be concentrated or dispersed, but rather is attempting to 
analyze what the environmental impacts of the proposed develop- 
ment would be on the Planet Ranch area. The fact that there 
are presently at least 182 large scale subdivisions in Arizona 
(Appendix G) may or may not indicate that the State and counties 
prefer this type of development. 

It is recognized that most of these subdivisions are not de- 
signed to provide the same type of development as envisioned 
by AR&M. 



181 



Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Development, cont'd 

Comments ; Should place in context of State land use plan. Defer action 
until such plan is underway. State Land Department is con- 
dueting a "Colorado River Land Study." 

Response ; The State of Arizona does not have a land use plan at this 
time. The primary purpose of the referenced study is to 
determine what, if any, lands along the Colorado River should 
be transferred to State ownership. 

Comments : Suggest use of Arizona Trade-Off Model (ATOM) to assist in 
preparation of environmental evaluation. 

Response : The ATOM is now being tested on a similar type proposal. Any 
beneficial results of this study will be applied to the Planet 
Townsite proposal. 



Comments: 



Response : 



State and Federal governments can assist in assembling land 
packages for beneficial purposes, but framework for such an 
analysis is lacking. Request delay in consummating proposed 
exchange. 

Normally the Federal Government does not take the initiative 
in blocking public lands for disposal to aid private develop- 
ment. The Federal Government will assist State and local 
governments' proposals provided such proposals do not conflict 
with Federal management goals. 



182 



Arizona SfSm department of 




TO: 



ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

Date: April 16, 3 973 
Mr. Justin Herman, Director 
Department of Highways 
206 South 17th Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 



FROM: Clearinghouse Staff Contact: Mrs. Constance LaMonica 

SUBJECT: Environmental Statement Review 

Applicant: Bureau of Land Management 

Project Title: Planet Town site ~ Draft Environmental 
Statement (DES 73 J.8j 



State Application Identifier: 73-S0-C024 



A copy of a Draft Environmental Statement is attached for your fsv : Iew and 
co nip- 1 (.'at hi accordance with requirements of OMD Circular A-9'h Please 
review the propo/sa;. as it affects the plana an;l programs ot your fiffincv and 
register yout resoase be-low. Also note a staff contact within your spenov 
in ;a:;e further consultation is required. Please ret urn this completed 
\o~"i: %■<->]•'■ hi fifteen (15) c:avs o f vour r ecei p t of t his requcKi:, 



jyQ Ko comment on the above project. 
[ I Proposal ie supported as written. 



APR 20 1973 



i) 



*_ 



L.J 



Coniroontfj are attached. 



• . STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 
FLAMMING & DEVELOPMENT 

-ttt-'c- contact the Clearinghouse should you desire farther information, or 
ed additional time for review. 



Review Agot.CY Staff ContaeliHjAju^^^ 



; C. 




183 





A UW?. f ■" i >' '< : C i \ i ..: v ■ e ">v 
Avey-cy &•'.$. nature 



,,,^,,k* W&m<!irir \\tt ^m *iii mmiM ) m '^M 



Arizona 



TO: 



~f% Department of 

W ECONOM IC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

t-, x, tt ~ j, * , ~. Date: April 16, 1973 

Dr. M. H. Goodwin Jr. , Director 

Health Planning Authority 

2980 Grand Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85017 



FROM: C£ea\»inghouse S-aff Contact: Mrs. Constance; 

SU£sJi"CT: .Snvtrcnmental Si:..; lenient Review 

Applicant: Bureau of Land Management 




Project Title; Planet Townsnte - Draft EnvirorrrjsntpJ 
Statement iDES 73 18) 



tate Application Identifier: 73-80-0024 



ii. copy c:. a Draft Environmental Slat'eir en't is attached for vour review and 
comment in accordance with requirements ci" OMB Circular A-95, Please 
review the proposal as it affects the plans ana programs of your agency and 
register your response below. Also note a stp.lf contact within your ?.gency 
in case furthes consultation if- required. Ptear-e return this completed 
\orrn. '<:■-• i h- : r-. [ifteer Ch'i cay-: of vour receipt o{ ilus rooucst. 



jj/j No ocmnnc-iit on the a'bcv*e project, 
[_ | Proposal is supported 8 s written. 



■$N% 



/j£ 



*£$. 



■ D R 



'973 



oOJXirnems 



cljcc. 



• e contact 'ha Cicarins'hov ae Rho'uldL vou d 



ncf-d ai.'i!.tiano i time 



re vi 'j v.*. 



uovnev." Agency M.iil Contact 




■>. \\ v ;h e r j n f o rm a 1 1 o n. , or '*' 




An i ho !*i,j ed >\ av 1 cv 
Agency Signature 



184 



y- 




JACK WILLIAMS 
GOVERNOR 



• 



.Arizona 
§tate Can5 Department 

1624 WEST ADAMS 

PHOENIX. ARIZONA 8S007 

602 ■ 271-4634 

April 19, 1973 




ANDREW L. BETTWY 
STATE LAND COMMISSIONER 



Arizona Department of Economic 
Planning and Development 
3003 N. Central Av. Suite 1704 
Phoenix, Arizona 85012 

Dear Sir: 

Re: State Application Identifier: 73-80-0024 

The State Land Dspartment favors the proposed Federal- 
State private exchanges to make Planet Townsite possible 
The exchanges will permit sound grouping of respective 
holdings, provide for better management and produce a 
greater return to more Arizona residents. 



Very truly yours, 




W. H. Edwards 
Administrative Assistant 
Contract Audit & Review 



I 




WHE:mb> 



APR 2 1973 



STATE CLEARINGHOUSE 
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC 
PLANNING C: DEVELOPMENT 



185 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona State Land Department 

Comment : Favors exchange. 

Response : This is a second letter from the Arizona State Land Depart- 
ment. See comments on letter dated April 23, 1973, Appendix 

F. 



186 



ARIZONA 



OFFICE 

OF THE 

GOVERNOR 




OFFICE OF 

ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 

3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 27l2S3*fc ! 



October 1, 1973 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Re: Planet Townsite 
SAI 73-80-0024 



ARJ20KA SJKIt OFFICE 



OCT c 73 



ASSOC. SD 
PCS 

RESOURCES" 
TECH SER ~ 
MGMT SER~ 
PUB. AFF 
CF 




Dear Mr. Fallini: 

Enclosed for your consideration is further comment by the 
Office of Economic Planning and Development relative to the 
above environmental statement. 



Sincerely yours, 

/^ ^Dennis A. Davis, E~xecuHye 
= ™'/\^ Secretary for Federal Programs 
I \ DAD : CL:lf 
encl 





187 



run mmwiiM 



40NA 



OFFICE 

OF THE 

GOVERNOR 




OFFICE OF 

ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 



3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Arizona State Clearinghouse 

FROM: David M. Hamernick, OEPAD ^S^ 

DATE: September 25, 1973 

SUBJECT: Planet Townsite-Draft Environmental Statement #73-80-0024 



The Office of Economic Planning and Development has already submitted a 
statement on the proposed land exchange. After our meeting last week, I felt it 
might be appropriate to add a few comments on the environmental impact statement. 
Perhaps the comments and questions could be answered in the final statement. 

1. The statement should describe the number of acres to be transferred from 

the Bureau of Land Management to the Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. , (AR&M) 
and the number of acres to be transferred from Arizona Ranch and Metals 
to BLM. A map showing the exchange between BLM and AR&M should be 
provided. Further, the map should show all the land to be controlled in fee by 
AR&M if the exchange is completed. 

2. The statement should describe the BLM land being leased to AR&M before 
and after the exchange. What are the restrictions on the leases? Will the 
land traded from AR&M to BLM be leased again to AR&M? 

3. The statement should describe any improvements on the lands to be exchanged, 
and whether or not the water rights will transfer from AR&M to BLM. 

4. How many acres of riparian vegetation would BLM receive in the exchange, 
and how many acres of desert vegetation or dry wash would they receive? 
How many acres of riparian vegetation would BLM transfer to AR&M in the 
exchange, and how many acres of desert vegetation and dry wash would they 

transfer? 

5. The statement should describe the impact on the riparian vegetation lands 
owned by BLM in drought years with the projected water withdrawal for 

the proposed community and the irrigated agricultural lands owned by AR&M. 



188 



Memorandum 

Arizona State Clearinghouse 

September 25, 1973 

Page 2 



6. The statement should show the flood plain as delineated in the Corps of 
Engineers study, and describe whether the roads and other improvements 
are located in the flood plain. 

7. The statement should describe plans to protect the /wildlife species both on 
and off- site. 

8. What obligation does the public (BLM) have to provide a sanitary land fill 
site? Why isn't it part of the exchange? 

9. I seriously question two statements on page 36. "The major part of this 
growth is expected to be in the Parker and Lake Havasu City areas, and 
substantial land acreage will be needed for community growth and 
development." "This in turn creates a demand for vacation -retirement 
homesites, which is not currently provided by the Parker-Kavasu areas." 

On the basis of our recent subdivision survey, it appears there is enough 
private subdivided land available along the Colorado River to accommodate 
population increases for a considerable time. 

10. The language on pages 66 and 77 carries an implied contradiction that should 
be explained more carefully. On page 66 it says special measures could be 
taken to provide protection to reduce harrassment of wildlife populations in 
the area. It also says restrictive measures to limit public access could 
reduce the impact. On page 77 it says adjoining public lands will be traversed 
by all uses associated with urbanization and management would become more 
difficult. On the one hand BLM seems to be willing to try special measures 

to protect wildlife and public lands; on the other hand they don't. Perhaps 
some qualifying sentences can be added to describe what BLM feels it can 
achieve under one set of circumstances that it can't under another. 

11. The statement on page 78 & 79 is questionable where it says a reduction in 
acreage would reduce all environmental consequences only where urbanization 
density is also relatively reduced. That statement ignores the unique natural 
characteristics of each parcel of land in question. A ; reduction of acreage on 
some critical riparian lands might significantly reduce environmental 
consequences. 



189 



Memorandum 

Arizona State Clearinghouse 

September 25, 1973 

Page 3 



12. The first sentence on page 80 is also questionable. "It is questionable 
whether other sites with potential for urbanization could be identified on public 
domain where an environmental impact of similar nature would not result 
from a townsite development." This appears to ignore the uniqueness of that 
portion of the Bill Williams River Valley and the importance of the threatened 
wildlife species such as the bighorn sheep and antelope. 

13. There is concern whether there can be any guarantee that the proposed 
development would occur as described. Perhaps an alternative should be 
added where the Federal government would guide the growth process through 
a series of deed restrictions and legal agreements that would guarantee the 
protection of certain natural characteristics both on and off the proposed site. 
Can BLM place restrictions on the use of land it exchanges into private 
ownership? 

14. The last paragraph on page 79 is important. It correctly shows the necessity 
for decisions of this nature to be placed within the framework of a Statewide 
land use plan. This is true not only for a substitution, but also for the 
proposal itself. If a substitution of this nature should be made within the 
framework of a Statewide land use plan, so should the original proposal for 
the land exchange. 



m 



190 



ARIZONA 

OFFICE 

OF THE 

GOVERNOR 




OFFICE OF 



ECONOMIC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 



3003 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE • SUITE 1704 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012 • (602) 271-5371 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: 

FROM: 
DATE: 
SUBJECT: 



Arizona State Clearinghouse 

Dave Hamernick fZ)/j 

September 26, 1973 

Planet Townsite-Draft Environmental Statement 
#73-80-0024 



is 

The following information'provided to further explain my statement an 

the September 25 memo under item #9. That statement was, "it appears 
there is enough private subdivided land available along the Colorado River 
to accommodate population increases for a considerable time. " 

Two population projections have been made for Mohave County in the year 
1990. They differ primarily on the basis of migration assumptions. The 
low estimate is 41, 900. The high estimate is 105, 000. 

The Office of Economic Planning and Development's subdivision study 
identified four geographic areas where most of the new settlement activity 
is going. These four areas contain 87% of all subdivision structures. 
Three of the four areas are immediately adjacent to the Colorado River. 
They are the Bullhead City-Riviera Complex, the Lake Havasu City Complex, 
and the Fort Mohave Reservation Strip Complex. The fourth area is 
located adjacent to the City of Kingman. The population capacity of these 
four areas is 168, 000 people. The capacity of the three areas along the 
Colorado River is 138,000 people. These estimates are based on the 
assumption no more land will be subdivided. Actually, over 3,000 
additional lots per year are being subdivided in Mohave County, so the 
capacity figures may have to be revised upward in the future. 

A total of 68, 5 87 lots have been inventoried in the areas we have said 
have the greatest potential for future settlement. We use this figure to 
conclude there is enough private land available to accommodate population 
increases for a considerable time. 



191 



Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development 

Comment: Additional information offered concerning projected 
population growth in Mohave County. 

Response : None. 

Comment: Suggested 14 items of information that should be included 
in the final EIS. 

Response : The text and maps in the final EIS have been revised to 
include the information wherever possible. Specific 
responses to each of the 14 items are: 

1. Maps were included in the draft statement and are in- 
cluded in the final statement. 

2. BLM does not lease any land to Arizona Ranch and Metals 
now and would not lease any after the proposed exchange. 
AR&M does have a license to graze cattle on Federal lands 
in the area and would continue to be licensed on Federal 
lands remaining in the area. 

3. Water rights attached to the land to be transferred to 
the Federal Government would remain with the land and 
would then be owned by the Government. 



192 



'7 



Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development, cont'd 



4. The private lands offered in the revised exchange 
by Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. include 1,280 acres 
of desert vegetation. 

5. Riparian vegetation on lands owned by Arizona Ranch 
and Metals Co. being offered for exchange below the 
Narrows is dying at this time. This may be the 
result of increased pumping on the middle and upper 
ranches in recent years for irrigation purposes. 

This land is no longer in the revised exchange 
proposal. 

6. The only developments proposed that would be 
affected by the 100-year flood plain zone are the 
roads that would cross the Bill Williams River and 
Castaneda Wash. 

7. No definite plans or proposals for protection of 
wildlife, both on site and off site, have been made 
at this time. 

8. The Recreation and Public Purposes Act of April 14, 1926, 
as amended, provides for use of public lands for sanitary 
landfills. However, under the modified development 

proposal, private land can accommodate the sanitary landfill. 



193 



Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development* cont'd 

9. The statement covering demand has been revised in the final 
EIS. The DEPAD study (Appendix G) was not available at 
the time the draft was prepared. 

10. The statements that appeared on page 66 of the draft 
statement were in the section of the draft entitled 
"Mitigating Measures Included in the Proposed Action." 
Those on the draft were in the section 
entitled "Adverse Effects Which Cannot be Avoided Should 
the Proposal be Implemented." 

11. It is not proposed that any riparian lands be developed. 
The intent of the wording in this section was to point out 
that reduction in acreage would reduce impact only where 
urbanization density is also reduced. 

12. It was not the intention to ignore the uniqueness of the 
Bill Williams River. 

13. It is the feeling of the Bureau of Land Management that 
State and local planning and zoning agencies should accept 
the responsibility of guiding a development of this type. 

14 . No comment . 



194 



x >? -1912 J-" 




Arizona Commission of 

Agriculture and Horticu 

P.O. BOX 6189 • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85005 • 271 

April 23, 1973 



State Director, Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 North First Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85023 




4 19 1 



APR 24 73 



CD 






ASSOC. SD 


PCS 


RESOURCES 




J 


TECH SER 






MGMT SER 


PJB. AFT 


CF -~l 


ACTON 


_._. ..... , Wht.t. 






SFE ME 



Re: 

Subject: 

Applicant: 



Statement Control Number INT DES-73- 
Environmental Impact Statement 
Bureau of Land Management 



18 



Project Title: Planet Townsite 



Dear Sir: 



This is in response to a "Notice" received in this office on April 13 which was 
accompanied by a "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Planet 
Townsite". Below I have made various comments which I believe are pertinent in 
keeping with our responsibilities where the Arizona Native Plant Law is concerned. 

Certain vegetation lying within the Planet Townsite, and on private property is not 
protected by the Native Plant Law and need not be cause for concern. The Commission 
feels, however, that protected native species, as underlined in red in the enclosed 
copy of the Native Plant Law, should not be destroyed but set aside and replanted 
in the area, or moved to some other suitable location. Many of these plants cannot 
be renewed by natural replacement in our lifetime. 

The Havasu City development is evidence of this problem. The townsite was completely 
cleared of any vegetation and so homeowners and nurserymen, seeking desert plants 
to landscape properties in Havasu City, illegally removed protected native plants 
from adjacent State and Federal lands. These treks into the desert destroyed other 
desert vegetation and contributed to erosion by the indiscriminate use of off-road 
vehicles. 

Pertaining to the report of water conditions and quality on the townsite, the future 
residents probably will go to low-maintenance native plant landscaping because of 
water costs and high salinity content of the water. 

If at all possible some effort should be made to leave as much of the desert vege- 
tation on the residential lots and park areas during development of the townsite in 
order to give the potential lot buyer a choice of landscaping materials he may wish 
to use on his lot. 



NASDA MEMBER 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE DEPARTMENTS 

OF AGRICULTURE 



195 



Agribusiness Is Everybody's Business 



NPB MEMBER 

NATIONAL 
PLANT BOARD 



State Director 

Vureau of Land Management 



2 - 



Page 2 



Personnel from the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture will be sin- 
cerely interested in discussing any aspects of the Arizona Native Plant Law with 
the Bureau of Land Management personnel. 



Sincerely, 



L. D. McCorkindale 
Director and 
State Entomologist 



LDM/ms 



enc. 



cc: Honorable Jack Williams 
Dr. Hubert Earle 
R. K. Perry 
R. A. Countryman 



196 



£SS^ Arizona Commission of 




v <^ i9i2.J" 



P.O. BOX 6189 • PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85005 » 271-4191 




ARIZONA, NA TIVE PLANT LAW 
Arizona Revised Statutes, Chapter 7 



Sec 3-901. 



ARTICLE 1. PROTECTION 

Protected group of glantc j botanical n^a govern; power to_add_or 
remove plants 



The botanical names of the plants referred to in this article shall in all 
cases govern in the interpretation of this article. Protected native plants 
shall be any plant or part thereof, except its fruit, named in the protected 
group which is growing wild on state land or public land or on privately owned 
land without being propagated or cultivated by human beings. 

The following shall constitute certain protected native plants that are pro- 
hibited from collection except for scientific or educational purposes under 
permit from the commission of agriculture and horticultures Washington!^ 
filifera (fan B .alm)^.bLa4],ffil M |WnWi ( ornament aL-tp 



0* burj 



■ ^^cTcTuTr^r^ 

X^a^fTT'ca'ctusT, "pediocactua ■jp.arjadlnei.^ 



fill II ■ >!TTTa TT3M ( 

'fits 



neoevansj 



s paradineic 
The following shall constitute the protected group of plants: 



rwi • t rw/T.T.lC'i 



f nfiffni ^SKITF . jjsj i ffiS 



TQpTI1?lT ? j ™ !f - hi « accac t or chid family^ |J|ir cras_suj,at;eay 



2. 



All species of the following genera; aquilegia (colu mbine), lobelia (lo- 
»y«fpyi 'lA ' ^prn rKenTT s n^tl na sT arTTprimula (primrose;, fouquieria _ 

(ocotillo)o 



3= The following species: atrij^, JS^^ 
(br^^lecone^ine)^^ 



D. The Arizona commission of agriculture and horticulture may, after public hear- 
ing add or remove any native plant to or from the protected group* A pubixc 
hearing on native plants shall be held at least every twelve months . 

SeCa 3-902 . Native plant permits and ta ps; fees: regulatory powers of commission 

A. The commission of agriculture and horticulture shall issue permits, tags and 
seals for a fee as prescribed by the commission, which fee shall not be less 
than one dollar per plant for all native plants except cereus giganteus (sagu- 
aro) and not less than two dollars per plant for each cereus giganteus (aaguaro; 



NASDA MEMBER 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

STATE DEPARTMENTS 

OF AGRICULTURE 



Agribusiness /s Everybody's Business 

197 



NPB MEMBER 

NATIONAL 
PLANT BOARD 



BR 



- 2 - 

to persons who take protected native plants from their original growing sites. 
No person, except as provided in this article, shall take or transport or haye 
in his possession any protected native plant from its original growing site in 
the state of Arizona unless at the time of taking he has a valid permit therefor 
on his person, attaches the tags or seals to the native plants at the time of 
taking and exhibits the permit and tags or seals upon request for inspection 
by any duly authorized agent of the Arizona commission of agriculture and horti- 
culture or by any peace officer as provided for in this chapter. No tag is 
valid unless it is issued with a valid permit and such permit bears the tag or 
seal number on its face. 

B. With each permit authorizing the taking, transporting or possessing of pro- 
tected native plants, the commission shall provide such tags and seals as tne 
commission may prescribe, which the permittee or his agent shall attach to tn 
protected native plants at the time of taking and before transporting and in 
such manner as prescribed by the commissiono After any protected native plant 
has been legally taken and tagged as provided by this article, it shall be un- 
lawful to remove such tag or seal until the plant has been transplanted into 
its ultimate site for landscaping or beautifi cation purposes. Removal ol tne 
tag or seal from the plant shall be only by an agent of the commission or by 
the ultimate owner of the plant, who shall retain such tag or seal as proof or 
ownership. No permit or tag or seal as such is transferable by the permittee 
or his agent, nor shall it be used by anyone except that person to whom such 
permit or tag or Beal was issued, nor shall it be used for more native plants 
than indicated thereon and no refunds shall be made for the purchase thereof. 
Any permittee shall be responsible for the acts of any other person or persons 
acting under any authority expressed or implied of the permittee. 

C. The commission of agriculture and horticulture may make necessary rules and 
regulations not in conflict with this chapter for the enforcement of its pro- 
visions. 

D. The commission of agriculture and horticulture is empowered and directed to 
enter in or upon any premises or other place, train, vehicle or other means of 
transportation within or entering the state, suspected of containing or having 
present therein or thereon protected native plants in violation of this article. 

E. When any power or authority is given by any provision of this article to any 
person, it may be exercised by any deputy, inspector or agent duly authorized 
by such person. Any person in whom the enforcement of any provision of this 
article is vested has the power of a peace officer as to such enforcement. 

See. 3-904 . Taking of plants; permit; tag fees; importation ^ exceptions 

A. Except as provided in this article, it is unlawful for any person to destroy, 
dig up, mutilate or take any living plant, except seeds, of the protected group 
from state land or public land without obtaining a permit and tags or seals 
from the Arizona commission of agriculture and horticulture, or from private 
land without obtaining written permission from the landowner, and a permit and 
tags or seals from the commission of agriculture and horticulture. It shall 

be unlawful for any person to falsify any paper or document issued to give per- 
mission for any person to take native plants of the protected group or to take 
more native plants than authorized by the permit. 

B. The commission of agriculture and horticulture may give written permission for 
a person or a scientific or educational institution to take a definite number 
of specified plants in the protected group from areas specified by the commis- 
sion for scientific or educational purposes. In addition the commission may 

198 



- 3 - 

give written permission for a person to take specific plants or parts of plants 
in the protected group from areas specified by the commission for manufacturing 
or processing purposes and assess reasonable and proper fees for such taking of 
the plants or parts thereof. It is unlawful, for any person or scientific or 
educational institution to misuse a permit in any manner. 

C. Any permit provided by subsections A and B shall expire when the tags or seals 
issued therewith have been attached to the plants covered by such permit and 
such plants are no longer in the possession of the permittee. Any permit shall 
be valid until expiration or for one year from date of issuance, whichever occurs 
first, except that any permit and the tags or seals issued therewith shall be 
null and void when the land on which the plants are growing, as described in the 
permit, changes ownership, unless the new owner certifies in writing that the 
permittee may continue taking such plants as specified on the permit. 

Do Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent the clearing of land, 

cleaning or removal of protected native plants from a canal, lateral ditch, sur- 
vey line, building site, or road or other right-of-way by the owner of the land 
or his agent unless such protected native plants are to be transported from the 
land or offered for sale. 

E. The commission of agriculture and horticulture shall collect fees for the issu- 
ance of permits and tags under this article, except for scientific and educa- 
tional purposes, and from a landowner moving protected plants from one of his 
properties to another, providing that no such plants are to be offered for sale* 

F. Any protected native plant found without a valid tag or seal securely and prop- 
erly affixed thereto when being taken, transported, sold, or in possession by 
any person may be confiscated as evidence of a violation. 

Sec. 3-905. Shipment of plants; exhibition of permit and certificate of inspection 
to carrier 

No person or common carrier shall transport a plant, or any part thereof, belonging 
to the protected group, nor receive or possess a protected native plant for trans- 
portation within or without the state, unless the person offering the plant for 
shipment exhibits to the person or common carrier a valid written permit for the 
transportation of the plant or part thereof, and has securely and properly attached 
thereto a valid native plant tag or seal. If for transport without the state, the 
plant shall also bear a certificate of inspection by the commission. All protected 
native plant species or varieties, when not grown in Arizona and imported into this 
state, shall be declared at an Arizona agricultural inspection station or a district 
office of the commission, and proceed to destination under quarantine orders issued 
by agents of the commission employed at such station or district office. 

Sec. 3-906. Arrests without warrant; confiscation of plants 

A peace officer or an officer or employee of the commission of agriculture and 
horticulture may, in the enforcement of this article, make arrests without warrant 
for a violation of this article which he may witness, and may confiscate plants 
or parts thereof belonging to the protected group when unlawfully taken, trans- 
ported, possessed, sold or otherwise in violation of this article. 

Sec. 3-907 . Violations; penalties 

A person violating any provision of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor punish- 
able by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than three hundred dollars, 

199 



- 4 - 

for each violation or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed ninety days, 
or both, and each violation constitutes a separate offense,. 

Sec. 3-908 . Arizona commission of aRriculture and horticul ture fund 

A. All fees or monies collected under the provisions of this article shall be de- 
posited with the state treasurer at the end of each month, who shall place it 
in a special fund which Is created to be known as the Arizona commission of 
agriculture and horticulture fund. 

B. Ninety per cent of all money deposited with the state treasurer shall consti- 
tute a separate and permanent fund for the use of the Arizona commission of 
agriculture and horticulture in the enforcement of the provisions of this 
chapter, and ten per cent shall be credited to the general fund of the state. 



Approved by the Governor - May 22, 1972 

Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State - May 22, 1972 

Effective - August 13, 1972 



L. D. McCorkindale, I 




McCorkindale, Director and State 
Entomologist 



LDM/ros 
500 



200 



I 

■n 

hi 



■ 



Comment : 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture 

Points out that vegetation growing on private property is 
not covered by the Arizona Native Plant Law. Suggests 
that certain plants be saved and replanted. Lists problems 
associated with the development of Havasu City. Feels that 
most landscaping will be done using native plants, and 
vegetation should be left on lots. 



Response : These suggestions are listed in the text as possible mitigating 
measures to reduce impacts on vegetation if the exchanges 
are consummated and a town developed in the area. 



201 



Governor 
'JACK WILLIAMS 



Commissioners 

HOMER L. G. KRYGER, Chairman, Yuma 

MILTON G. EVANS, Flagstaff 

ROBERT J. SPILLMAN, Phoenix 

GLEN D. DALY, Winslow 

CHARLES F. ROBERTS, O.D., Bisbe* 



Director 

ROBERT A. JANTZEN 



Asst. Director, Operations 
PHIL M. COSPER 



.4ssf. Director, Services 
ROGER J. GRUENEWALD 



. .1 













ARIZONA GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT 

2222 W*tg>u*AM*y <%t*d G^W*, ^ba^ 85023 942-3000 



June 27, 1973 



Mr. Joe Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



JUL 
/ 



PC 
RES 



l 



■IP 



JU'RCtS 
TECH SER 
MGM'T SER 

CF^ 



£ 



3l 



*C1IO«t 

INTOi 

"SEE IHfflL 



Our Department has reviewed the Draft Environmental State- 
ment for the proposed Planet Townsite in Mohave County, Arizona 
dated March 29, 1973. 

In view of the potential impact that this development project 
will have on wildlife and its habitat and in view of the unknown or 
partially understood impacts, we are concerned with these impacts 
and, therefore, question the desirability of the proposed land ex- 
change in its entirety. 

We see a certain degree of wisdom and desirability in a modi- 
fied exchange, especially one whereby the federal government would 
acquire the private land adjacent to the Bill Williams River, 
would be desirable from a wildlife management position. 



This 



The Bureau of Land Management's environmental statement 
adequately covers the modified exchange as an alternative. In fact, 
the entire statement is well written and adequately covers the impor- 
tant facts that are necessary for a good statement. 

With regards to wildlife, we are mostly concerned with those 
species of wildlife already having a precarious existence without the 
proposed development. 



202 



Mr. Joe Fallini - 2 - June 27, 1973 



The Yuma clapper rail could have its numbers reduced further 
if the riparian vegetation of the Bill Williams River is reduced or 
modified. Acquisition of these riparian areas by the federal govern- 
ment would provide a measure of protection. 

However, with regard to these wetland habitats to be acquired 
through exchange, we are concerned that they will be subject to modi- 
fication through water uses associated with the intensive development. 

Projected human disturbance on bighorn sheep populations would 
have an undesirable effect on this unique ungulate. 

Projected human disturbance and additional land development in 
this area will, in all probability, eliminate the local population of 
Mexican pronghorn antelope. 

The proposed townsite also harbors good numbers of Gambel's 
quail, whitewing doves, mourning doves, and a limited population of 
desert mule deer. These species would not be "displaced" as antici- 
pated in the statement summary, but would probably be removed. 

Finally, it appears that the ultimate fate of wildlife in this area 
and vicinity will depend on land use planning, zoning, and other measures 
and conditions imposed by Mohave County. 

Those areas of critical environmental concern as described in the 
statement should be dedicated as green belts, flood plains, open space, 
wildlife habitat, etc. , with deed restriction precluding development in 
future years. 

Areas of critical environmental concern can be preserved in 
planned communities if planning, zoning restrictions, and regulations 
provide for this protection. 



2Q3 



Mr. Joe Fallini 



- 3 - 



June 27, 1973 



Finally, we are concerned with the impact of the use of water 
in this area. We know that the Bill Williams River will experience 
a certain depletion as mentioned in the environmental statement. 
We feel that a use study of water and its relationship to other resources 
might be appropriate. 

In conclusion, we feel that in the public interest the best alterna- 
tive would be no project with the second best as the modified exchange. 

The Game and Fish Department appreciates the opportunity to 
review and comment on the Planet Townsite Environmental Statement. 



Sincerely, 



///4/^^/W 



Robert A. A&ntzin, Director 



RAJ;iw 



204 



Response to Comments 
by 

Arizona Game & Fish Department 

Comment : Expressed concern over impacts on wildlife and questioned 
the desirability of consummating the exchange as proposed. 
Principally concerned with species of wildlife that are 
already having a precarious existence. 

Response : The impacts on wildlife are discussed in the text. 

C omment : Riparian land to be acquired would possibly benefit the Yuma 
clapper rail but there is the possibility that water con- 
sumption by the proposed city would alter wetland habitat. 

Response : The statement acknowledges this possibility. 

Comment : Development of townsite would have an undesirable effect on 
bighorn sheep and, in all probability, eliminate the local 
population of Mexican pronghorn antelope. 

Response : The text has been revised to reflect this possibility. 

Comment : Certain species of wildlife would be removed rather than 
displaced. 



Response : The summary page has been revised. This is based on the 

assumption that if all existing habitat is presently occupied, 
then elimination of any habitat by changing land use will 
result in a proportional loss of the species of wildlife 

occupying the habitat. 

205 



Arizona Game & Fish Department, cont'd 



Comment: 



Response ; 



Comment ; 



The last several paragraphs on page 2 contain zoning and 

land use planning -recommendations. 

State and local planning and zoning authorities have responsibility 

for control of development of private lands. 

Concern expressed over impact of water use. Suggest a use 

study of water and its relationship to other resources be made. 



Response : The most detailed study that is available concerning water 
in this area was prepared by Samuel Turner in August 1962. 
This report was updated by Mr. Paul A. Manera, consulting 
hydrologist, Phoenix, Arizona, by letter dated October 13, 
1971. This report and correspondence from the Arizona 
Water Commission dated July 20, 1972, all indicate that there 
is sufficient water available to support the proposed develop- 
ment. 

The impact of using this water is not fully understood with 
respect to downstream riparian vegetation. 

Turner states on page 46 of his report that in August 1962, 
there were 1,680.5 acres mapped as a phreatophyte area; he 
estimated that these plants used 5,943 acre feet of water 
per year. 

See Appendix J . 



206 






.. . ! 



M 



■ 




OrncE! or 



JACK WILLIAMS 

GOVERNOR 



STATE OF ARIZONA 

iJfjflMtix, ^.rizmta 55001 



ANDREW L. BETTWY 
STATE LAND COMMISSIONER 



April 23, 1973 



HmbB 

HI 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini, Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 



Re: INT DES 73-18 



The State Land Department supports the proposal 
for the Plant Townsite and the related State-Federal exchanges 
and or selections as well as the concept of the Federal-private 
exchanges to consolidate various holdings. 

Sincerely, 
/7) 



Andrew L. Bettwy / 



ALB:bka 



207 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
8W. LAND MANAGEMENT 

APR 24 73 


Assoc, sb -3^ 


PCS , v 


RESOURCES 
TCCHSER 


MGWT SER 


PJ8. AFF 


CF 


ACTION 


INFO. 


see me 



QggHBBHB 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona State Land Department 

Comment : Supports proposal for consolidation of various holdings. 

Response : As pointed out in the text, the State Land Department was a 
party to the original proposal for exchanging lands. The 
State feels that the increase in value of State lands as 
a result of the development would benefit the State school 
fund. 



208 




STATE OF ARIZONA 
DEPARTMENT OF MINERAL RESOURCES 

MINERAL BUILDING. FAIRGROUNDS 

PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 



May 25, 1973 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 North First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICF 
BJ. LAND MAHAGtMfrT 

MAY 2 9 73 


ftfiS'OC. so , 




IPCS / 




resowrSs 

TECM SE« 


M'Gwttser 


; 


j PJ3. AFF 


or 


ACTION j 


!NF" i 


— ,_ 


M.E MS. 's 



Dear Sir : 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental 
Statement for the Planet Townsite. The Bureau of Land Management is to be 
commended for their excellent job in preparing the environmental statement. 

The Arizona Department of Mineral Resources has no specific comments on 
the proposed land exchange or planned townsite. Our only concern involves 
the relationship between the proposed townsite and the future mineral poten- 
tial of the Planet mine area. We sincerely hope this is kept in mind and 
nothing will be done to create a potential conflict. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely, 






Ken A. Phillips, 

Mineral Resource Specialist 



KAP/GCS 



209 






Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona State Department of Mineral Resources 

Comment : Expressed concern for the possibility of a future conflict 
between mining and residential development. 

Response : No ser i ous conflicts have been identified at this time, 

since the known mineralized areas are located south of the 
proposed development. Should mining operations start in the 
future, there is a possibility that conflicts would occur with 
mining operations necessary for the hauling and processing of 
ore. 

It should be noted that the existing road from Havasu Springs 
to the Planet Ranch headquarters was constructed in 1967 for 
the purpose of providing a reasonable route of transportation 
for the Mineral Hill Mine which was then employing some 60 
workers, most of whom resided in the Parker area. The road 
also assisted in the transportation of ore from the mine. 



210 




ARIZONA 

STATE 

PARKS 



fc&P^ 



1688 West Adams 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 
Telephone 271-4174 
DENNIS MCCARTHY, Director 
WALLACE VEGORS, Assistant Director 



JACK WILLIAMS 
Governor 



STATE PARKS BOARD MEMBERS: 

B. MARC NEAL, Chairman, Kingman 

DELL TRAILOR, Vice Chairman, Phoenix 

RALPH G. BURGBACHER, Secretary, Phoenix 

ANDREW L. BETTWY, Phoenix/ A.C. WILLIAMS, 

Prescott/ DUANE MILLER, Sedona/ RICKI RARICK, Tucsor 



May 15, 1973 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Joe: 

The staff has just completed a review of the draft of the 
Planet Town Site Environmental Statement. We see no 
references in the Statement to the Historic Site Preservation 
Act of 1966 nor the implementation of Executive Order 11593. 
We would like to be informed whether the lands proposed for 
exchange have been inventoried in conformance with the Executive 
Order and that no valuable cultural assets are being jeopardized 
by the potential trade. 



DM:nl 



f„:ljaNA STATS Of F:-Cr. 
R» U.UD MAHAOCMtHT 



!AV i 6 73 






TECS! 5ER_ 
PJS t.ft 

cr 



ACTION 

INFCS. 

SEE Wl 



Sincerely, 




dennis McCarthy 

State Parks Director 



211 



i Mgp n i , *rm fflg ■'■^'■wy ? 1 ■ - ■ ■ 



^ W j j ttf y pW i agajjMtM 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona State Parks 

Comment : Suggest that the final statement include references to the 

Historic Site Preservation Act of 1966 and Executive Order 

11593. 

Response : The statement has been revised to reflect the following: 

Three areas are presently under study to determine if they 

would qualify for nomination to the National Register. 

There are no sites presently designated that would be 
affected by the proposal. See letter from Arizona State 
Parks dated December 18, 1973, in Appendix F. 



212 







ARIZONA 
STATE 



JACK WILLIAMS 
Governor 



£I| PARKS 



1688 West Adams 
Phoenix, Arizona 85007 
Telephone 271-4174 
DENNIS MCCARTHY, Director 
WALLACE VEGORS, Assistant Director 



STATE PARKS BOARD MEMBERS: 
B. MARC NEAL, Chairman, Kingman 
DELL TRAILOR, Vice Chairman, Phoenix 
RALPH G. BURGBACHER, Secretary, Phoenix 
ANDREW L. BETTWY, p^°" i x /jHHP— mLL lA MS , 



Prescott/ DUANE MILLER 



Sedogl 



December 18 , 1973 



Sffigffi K| 



£ 



B£C2i73 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
230 North First Street 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



Dear Mr. Fallini: 




Re: Proposed Planet Townsite 
Development 



In response to your letter of November 1, 1973, my comments 
are as follows: 

1. There are no sites in the described area that are 
presently on the National Register of Historic Places. 
However, I wish to state strongly that compliance with 
Section 1(3) and 2(b) of Executive Order 11593 should 
be demonstrated. Since a rather complex land exchange 
is involved in the proposed development of Planet 
Townsite it is imperative that an adequate survey be 
made of both pre-historic sites, as discussed on pp. 
26-27 of the draft environmental statement, and such 
historic cultural resources as might exist. The Planet 
Ranch itself played an important role in the early 
history of the area. There are known Indian petroglyphs 
and Indian camp sites in the general area as well as the 
important early man sites (San Dieguito complex) already 
located within the Federal lands proposed for exchange. 
It should be clearly determined if sites comparable to 
the San Dieguito ones or sites of other cultural 
affiliations exist on lands other than those Federally 
owned, since these will be ultimately involved in the 
total picture of development. 



213 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
December 18, 1973 
Page 2 



2. Impact on the access points of Lake Havasu State 
Park will be affected by the demographic increase of 
approximately 20,000 persons on completion of the 
envisioned townsite. The facilities and the fragile 
natural environment of the lake will be taxed by the 
present and projected increased use through normal 
growth of existing population centers. A large 
additional population center could create a situation 
which would put a heavy load upon the available facilities 
and the ability of the lake accesses to support the 
people impact of the proposed townsite. 



Sincerely, 




UuAw 



dennis McCarthy <T"\ — - 

State Parks Director^ 
State Historic 
Preservation Officer 



DM:DH:ol 



214 



Response to Comments 

by 
Arizona State Parks 

Comments : It is imperative that adequate surveys be made. 

Response: An intensive cultural resource has been done on the 
Federal land proposed exchange with the National 
Register of Historic Places and Yuma and Phoenix 
District (BLM) files were consulted for information 
on non-Federal lands. BLM has no authority to 
construct on the ground surveys on non-BLM lands. 



215 



NORMAN B. LIVERMORE, JR. 
SECRETARY 



Department of Conservation 
Deportment of F i sh and Game 
Department of Navigation and 

Ocean Development 
Deportment of Porks and Recreo 
Deportment of Water Resources 



RONALD REAGAN 

GOVERNOR OF 

CALIFORNIA 




OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
RESOURCES BUILDING 
1416 NINTH STREET 
95814 



Air Resouices Board 
Colorado River Board 
San Francisco Bay Con snrv aTian and 

Development Commission 
State Lands Commission 
State Reclamation Board 
State Water Resources Control Board 
Regional Water Quality Control Boards 



THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 

JUL 1 7 1973 



Mr. Joseph T. Falllni 

State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

U. S. Department of the Interior 

Arizona State Office 

3022 Federal Building 

230 North First Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 



«MNMA«Klt«t*VC* 
•U.UMD«MtMtM 



ft* I 



JUL 23 73 j 



S O 

ASSOC. SO ^f_ 

PCS 1^"^ 

RESOUKCtS, 
TECH WOt " 

MSMT SElP 

PJB.AFF 

CF 



Sr?F#t 



The State of California has reviewed the "Planet-Townsi-ce-^raft 
Environmental Statement" which was submitted to the Office of 
Intergovernmental Management (State Clearinghouse) within the 
Governor's Office. The review accomplished by the State fulfills 
the requirements under Part II of the U. S. Office of Management 
and Budget Circular A-95 and the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969. 

The Statement has been reviewed by the State Departments of Fish 
and Game and Water Resources ; the State Water Resources Control 
Board; and Colorado River Board of California. The State's 
comments are the following: 

^he State of California is concerned about the effect that this 
proposal would have on the National Wildlife Refuge in the Bill 
Williams Arm of Lake Havasu and within the riparian area of the 
Bill Williams River; a large number of the migrating Canada goose 
population and the ducks using this part of the Colorado River 
concentrate in that area. The new townsite development with the 
access roads and increased human use of the area will discourage 
or prevent many of these birds from remaining within the refuge 
area where they have been seeking food and rest. These birds con- 
tribute substantially to hunting and other recreational uses in 
California. 



216 



• 



Mr. Joseph T. FallinI 



-2- 



We suggest that the alternative of no action be given further 
consideration. Through control of federal lands and access 
thereon, future community developments would be encouraged at 
presently developed townsites In nearby areas. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this 
Statement. 

Sincerely yours, 

N. B. LIVERMORE, JR. 
Secretary for Resources 




217 



,--i'—i4»i.i-* mi BUM 



Response to Comments 
by 

The Resources Agency of California 

Comment ; Expressed concern for the proposal's impact on Havasu Refuge 
and possible impacts on numbers of waterfowl that contribute 
to hunting and other recreational uses in California. 

Response : Possible adverse impacts are noted in this statement. 

United States Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife letter 
dated May 25, 1973, also addresses this issue (Appendix F) . 

Comment : Control of Federal lands and access would encourage more 
development at presently established townsites in nearby 
areas if the proposed exchanges were not consummated. 

Response : As indicated in the statement, there is good reason to 

believe that economic consideration will cause the land owner 
to attempt some sort of development even if the proposed land 
exchange is not consummated. It is true, that in the absence 
of an exchange, the proposed development may not be as 
attractive to prospective lot purchasers. As pointed out in 
the text the location of townsites is largely the responsi- 
bility of State and county planning and zoning organizations. 



218 



STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY 



WILLIAM R. GIANELLI, Director 



DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 



P. O. BOX 388 
SACRAMENTO 95802 




ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



JUNl^ 73 



SD 

ASSOC. SD, 

PCS vjg 

RESOURCES 
TECH SER 
WGMT SER 
PUB. AFF 
CF 




JUN 1 1 1973 



State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 Worth First Avenue 
Phoenix, AZ 85025 

Dear Sir: 

This is in reply to your "Notice" transmitting the "Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Planet Townsite" 
dated 1973. The Department of Water Resources is in the process of 
preparing the State's comments on the same Impact Statement. There- 
fore, our comments will be incorporated therein. 

Sincerely yours, 



Zs~rif. £^__^ 



for Director 



219 



si 



$&a\\Mt <&*** 






P.O. BOAT 



*V 



DONALD A. ALDRIDGE 

CHAIRMAN 

W. B. KETCHNER, 0. D. 

MEMBER 

JAMES H. HOWELL, D. D. S. 

MEMBER 

XEfcSKHMKMK George F. Anast 

COUNTY MAKAGER 
GAIL KESLER 

am 




May 21, 1973 



7 , ^ 86401 



!■:;■ 



ttperinsorg 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE " 
DU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



may? #7;; 



ASSOC. SD 
PCS / 

RESOURCES 

TECH SER 
MGM'T SER 
PUB. AFF 
CF 




Mr. Joseph T. Fallini 
State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Room 3047, Federal Building 
First Avenue and Van Buren 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 

The Mohave County Board of Supervisors has reviewed the Planet Townsite 
Draft Environmental Statement prepared by your office. 

The proposed exchange of lands appears to be in the public interest for 
the following reasons: 

1. Lands of importance to wildlife will be conveyed to 
Federal ownership and will be included in the Havasu 
Migratory Wildfowl Refuge as was recommended in the 
Lowel Colorado River Land Use Plan (Department of 
Interior, 1964.) 

2. Federal, State and private holdings will be consolidated, 
making for more efficient administration of both Federal 
and State lands. 

3. The private land owner, Arizona Ranch and Metals Company, 
will be able to develop a unified and well planned 
community on desert lands and will be relieved of the 
necessity of selling off its unique lands along the Bill 
Williams River in TUN, R17W for mobile home development 
and will be conveying these environmentally important 
lands into public ownership. 



220 



Page two 
May 21, 1973 



For these reasons, and because we believe the proposed development will 
be an asset to Mohave County, we support the proposed exchange and urge 
BLM to proceed with it. 

Sincerely, 

MOHAVE/CbUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 




Donald R. Aldridge 
Chairman 




BOS:jp 




Member 





^*-P 



James H. Howell, D.D.S. 
Member 



221 



Response to Comments 

by 

Mohave County Board of Supervisors 

Comment : Expressed support for the proposal. 

Response : AR&M indicates that they worked closely with the Mohave 

County Board of Supervisors in the initial development of 
their proposal. 



222 



0° 



^iZOjy. 



s& 



V* 





ARIZONA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 



P. 0. BOX 11312 
Phoenix, Arizona 8506I 



"ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. Li'.riO MANAGSMCNT 



^io* 1 



June 5, 197; 



join 



ASSOC. SD 4 


£> 




PCS £J5 


RESOURCES 






TZCH SER 


r/GM'T SEtl 


PUC. AFF 


CF 






ACTION 




INFO. 


SEE m: 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
Arizona. Stste Office 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona ?: r fZ5 

Dear Mr, Fallini: 

We would like to thank the Bureau of Land Management for offering 
the Arizona Conservation Council this opportunity to comment on the Planet 
Townsite Environmental Statement. The BLM is to be commended for the effort 
represented by the scope of this study. 

We are in general agreement with the impact as noted by this study. 
We are, however, bothered by the following assumptions which seem to 
prevail in developing the statement: 

(1) The Planet Townsite is a needed facility. 

(2) The developer will keep his promises to develop in a manner 
to minimise the environmental impact. 

(3) The Planet Townsite will eventually grow to its planned size. 

As you probably know Arizona is already developed to accomodate a 
population of several million more people than there are presently residing 
here. With the priorities on land planning and resource conservation 
emerging as they presently are, it would not be in the best interest of 
the public to sponser a speculative development. Because of this we feel 
the following conditions are needed. 

Initial development should proceed without the exchange of Federal 
lands but with the assurance that such exchanges are available only if 
and when: 

a. The apparent growth and, on site development (not speculative 
purchase of lots) display a need for such exchanges. 

b. The promised development standards to minimize impact along with 
~._ the proper covenants and restrictions to guarantee them are adopted 

and in effect in the initial community established. 

con't 



AMERICAN CAMPING ASSN • AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS • ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONA ASSN OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 
ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSN • ARIZONA FEDERATION OF GARDEN CLUBS <■ ARIZONA FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS • AMERICAN YOUTH HOSTELS 
ARIZONA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN • ARIZONA STATE HORSEMENS ASSN • ARIZONA OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSN • ARIZONA ROADSIDE COUNCIL 
ARIZONA PARKS & RECREATION ASSN • ARIZONA VARMINT CALLERS ASSN • AUDUBON SOCIETY • SIERRA CLUB • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIENCE 
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONANS IN DEFENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 223 








% 



€&\ 



*io*« 



£ 



ARIZONA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 



Page 2 j ; Planet Towns it e Enyir nmen ta l Impact Comments 



C. Sites that are not built on within a year after purchase can be 
exchanged for more remote sites of similar value to minimize 
the utility expense for those that do build by congregating sites 
into one area. 

If these conditions are assured then there can be little argument 
with the observation that the exchange will help minimi ze the overall 
impact. However, if the developer changes through business shifts or 
other factors the exhange would be a catalyst for the growth of a undesir- 
able development. In any case it would seem that a land exchange bound 
by such conditions and delay would do little harm to a responsible de- 
veloper and would allow the BLM and the public a chance to evaluate 
those factors about the development which are not available at this time. 

Thank you for this opportunity again. 

icerely , 





Lyndon Keefer 

Chairman 

Ariaona Conservation Council 



cc: Congressional Delegation 



AMERICAN CAMPING ASSN • AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS • ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONA ASSN OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 
ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSN • ARIZONA FEDERATION OF GARDEN CLUBS • ARIZONA FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS • AMERICAN YOUTH HOSTELS 
ARIZONA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN • ARIZONA STATE HORSEMENS ASSN • ARIZONA OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSN • ARIZONA ROADSIDE COUNCIL 
ARIZONA PARKS & RECREATION ASSN • ARIZONA VARMINT CALLERS ASSN • AUDUBON SOCIETY • SIERRA CLUB • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIENCE 
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONANS IN DEFENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 2 24 ■ 



Response to Comments 

by 

Arizona Conservation Council 



Comment : Express concern over assumptions that (1) the townsite 

is needed; (2) the developer will keep his promises; and 
(3) the townsite will grow to its planned size. 

Response : Since this statment is attempting to analyze a proposed 
development and not an existing one, certain assumptions 
must be made. The text of the statement states that if 
the exchange is consummated the deed would not contain 
any covenants governing the use to which the lands would 
be put or the conditions of such use. 

Comment : The exchange of lands should not be made until the 

private lands have been developed. This would allow the 
developer the opportunity to prove that the proposed 
townsite was not merely a speculative venture. 

Response : Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. has indicated they would 
develop a community regardless of the outcome of the 
proposed exchange. 



225 



MO): 






n 



y&\ 



ARIZONA CONSERVATION COUNCIL 

P. 0. Pox 11312 Phoenix, Arizona 8506I 



.0 



September 29, 1973 



*iotJ 



Kr. Joe T. Fallinl, State Director 
Bureau of Land Panagement 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



OCT 573 



Re: Plsnet Townsite- 
Dear Mr. Fallini: 



Draft Environment?! Statement 



At the request of Mr. Walter Smith I have again reviewed the 
Planet Townsite land exchange with the Board of Directors of the 
Arizona Conservation Council and with members of the council who would 
have particular knowledge and interest in this exchange. The result 
of this review was a general concurance with our original statement. 

I would like to express at this time ray difference with suggestions 
which were made at times that the Bureau of Land Magament's impact 
statement was inadequate. As one who has reviewed many draft impact 
Stfterents I thought the Bureau staff did an admirably good job on 
f complex subject during complex times. 

The Arizona Conservation Council would again like to express our 
our gratitude to your agency and staff for the many opportunities of 
public participation and service which you have offered. 

Sincerely, 



v-&- 






Lyndon Keefer, Chairman 4 
Arizona Conservation Council 



cc; Arizona Dept. of Economic Planning and Development 



AMERICAN CAMPING ASSN • AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS • ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONA ASSN OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 
ARIZONA EDUCATION ASSN • ARIZONA FEDERATION OF GARDEN CLUBS • ARIZONA FEDERATION OF WOMENS CLUBS • AMERICAN YOUTH HOSTELS 
ARIZONA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSN • ARIZONA STATE HORSEMENS ASSN • ARIZONA OUTDOOR WRITERS ASSN • ARIZONA ROADSIDE COUNCIL 
ARIZONA PARKS & RECREATION ASSN • ARIZONA VARMINT CALLERS ASSN • AUDUBON SOCIETY • SIERRA CLUB • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSCIENCE 
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA WILDLIFE SOCIETY • ARIZONANS IN DEFENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

226 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Conservation Council 

Comment : This is a second letter reaffirming their position. 

Response : See comments following Arizona Conservation Council's 
letter of June 5, 1973. 



227 



y* V" , """ Ss8f **> 4 

' P. 0. Box 5241 • Phoenix, Arizona 85010 

May 23, 1973 

Arizona State Office ! 

Bureau of Land Management 
Department of the Interior 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Reference: Land Exchange of Proposed Planet Townsite Near 
Bill Williams River, Mohave County, Arizona 

Gentlemen: j 

L 

The environmental impact statement for the proposed Planet Ranch land 
exchange has been reviewed by the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society 
and we are vitally concerned with the potential loss of significant bands 



'-70 



>a:./- ._ 



of desert bighorn sheep. 



■ 



The impact statement points out the advers** ef ffee*" tha| would be real- 
ized by encroachment on, the native bighorn- sheep ||ab|=tjit. The proposed 
townsite on the iflanet Ranch along the Bill Williams River would result 
in loss of habitat and sheep, similar to" that experienced from the de- 
velopment of Lake Havasu City. Continued large scale development of 
this type would eventually result in the total annihilation of native 
Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep on lands bordering the Colorado River from 
Kingman to Yuma. v. 

We recognize the fact that development of some l&nds is inevitable with 
increasing influx of population and the increased desire and needs for 
recreational developments. Unfortunately, thfe encroachment of native 
wildlife is a permanent, and £01? all praeti;l:a3| purposes, irreversible 
process. The loss of natural range and lanijbfa^ grounds is pointed out 
in the impact study as being a predictable outcome of the proposed town- 
site. 

It is strongly recommended that maximum consideration be given to the 
preservation of the Bighorn Sheep habitat by c#nsiidering possible alter- 
nate utilization of the lands in the Planet Ranch area. 

Whereas the proposed Planet towjisi:$e,^ and devastating 

effects on the survival or a significant portion of the native Arizona 
Desert Bighorn Sheep population, we hereby state our opposition to the 
development of the Planet townsite as currently proposed. 

Sincerely yours , 

228 Cecil LaVance, President 

/dc 



Comment : 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society Inc . 

Concerned with potential loss of desert bighorn sheep. 
Feel consideration should be given to alternative uses 
of lands in Planet Ranch area. States opposition to the 
townsite as currently proposed. 



Response : The statement recognizes that the proposed development would 
have impact on wildlife. The desert bighorn sheep 

are discussed in detail in the text, and it is recognized that 
any development that results in disturbance of bighorn sheep 
habitat is detrimental to the survival of this species. 



229 



11— 




ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

P.O. Box 1769 • Phoenix, Arizona 85001 • Phone 602-253-4903 



June 21, 1973 



ARIZONA STATS OrfiCF 
(K' LfiKO UANAftCWCW 



JU.N22 73 



K5.SOC SD 


_^Z__ 


res 


• 


RESOURCES 


TECH SER 


KGWT SER 


?JS. AFF 


cr 




AC' !0'l 


i*jr n. 




<■. F t' M i. 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini 
Arizona State Director 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
3022 Federal Building 
Room 3047 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

RE: Planet Ranch Land Exchange 



Dear Joe: 

Please include the following comments in the final environmental 
statement on the Planet Townsite. 

The AWF supports alternative A, No Action, as listed on page 77 
of the draft statement. A city of the proposed size would have_ 
serious adverse impacts as the statement points, out. The benefits 
from the proposal would not "outweigh" the adverse impacts. 

We seriously question the availability of water for the proposed 
city and feel that this is a limiting factor which has been over- 
looked. Attempting to furnish water for the needs of 7,000 fami- 
lies would place an unreasonable demand on the Bill Williams 
River watershed. 

Considering the Arizona Department of Economic Planning and Develop- 
ment study of large scale subdivisions, the proposed land exchange 
should not be authorized. The DEPAD study concluded that Arizona 
presently has enough subdivided land to meet the projected growth 
through the year 2000. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. 
Sincerely, 

Board of Directors 

ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 



JUL SUA 

Richard L. Small 
Executive Secretary 
ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 
RLS:sly 



230 



Established 1923 - Formerly The Arizona Game Protective Association • State Affiliate of The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 



ATTACHMENT 

Joe T. Fallini Page 2 June 21, 1973 

cc: Governor Jack Williams 

Representative Morris Udall 
Representative Sam Steiger 
Mohave County Planning § Zoning 
Mohave County Board of Supervisors 
Yuma County Board of Supervisors 
Arizona State Land Department 
Arizona Water Commission 



231 



L 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Comment : Supports alternative of no action. Questions availability 
of water. Cites DEPAD study indicating there is enough 
land subdivided in Arizona for projected needs. 

Response : Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. have based their water 

estimates on reports by Turner (Appendix D, Reference #2). 
The DEPAD study is contained in Appendix G, 
The revised proposal by AR&M significantly reduces the 
proposed consumptive use of waters. 



232 




ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

P.O. Box 1769 • Phoenix, Arizona 85001 • Phone 602-253-4903 



October 16, 1973 



Mr. Joe T. Fallini, Director 
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
GU. LAND MANAGEMENT 



OCT 1373 



CD 1 




AS'COC. SD 


S--CS 


KE^CURCES 


MZA 5ER 


f/.GM'T SER 


PUS. AFF 


CF 




ACTION 


■ ■-■ 


Stt Mi 


.. 


— --- '■' ■ — -~ 



RE: PLANET RANCH LAND EXCHANGE 



Dear Joe : 

As a result of an Arizona Ranch and Metals Company presentation 
on the proposed Planet Ranch land exchange at the October 13, 1973 
meeting, the AWF Board of Directors voted unanimously to re-affirm 
our position of supporting alternative A, page 77, DES 73-18. 
Please include this letter in the Final Statement. 

Our understanding is that the record for comments has been 
re-opened due to a request from Arizona Ranch and Metals _ Company , 
and that the comments from various organizations and individuals 
were made available for review prior to publication of a final 
environmental statement. Is this standard administrative procedure 
or was an exception made in this case? 

The final statement should cover the very good possibility that 
Arizona Ranch and Metals Company would not be the company to develop 
the proposed townsite should you approve the exchange. Reportedly, 
McCulloch Corporation has sent Arizona Ranch and Metals a letter 
of intent to develop the land. What guarantee do you have that 
the proposed development plan will be adhered to by McCulloch 
Corporation? 

Thank you for re-opening the public record and accepting our 
additional comments . 



Richard L. Small, 



Executive Secretary 
ARIZONA WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

cc : Mohave County Board of Supervisors 
Senator Stan Turley 
Governor Jack Williams 

Department of Economic Planning $ Development 
Arizona Game § Fish Department 



233 



Established 1923 - Formerly The Arizona Game Protective Association • State Affiliate of The National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Wildlife Federation 

Comment : Was the time for comments extended? 

Response : Although no formal extension of time for receipt of 

comments was made, BLM welcomes any additional information 
submitted in time to be included in the final statement. 

Comment : The final statement should cover the possibility that AR&M 
would not be the ones to develop the proposed townsite. 

Response : See AR&M letter, Appendix F (Ryley, Carlock & Ralston), 



234 



Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 



New York Office 

36 West 44th Street 

New York. New York 10036 

212 986-8310 



664 Hamilton Avenue 

Palo Alto, California 94301 

415 327-1080 



May 30, 1973 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. LAND MANAGCMCNT 



Arizona State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Sir: 




Washington Office 

1710 N Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

202 783-5710 



<r<^- 



Please inform us how many of the environmental impact 
statements for the Planned Townsite Land Exchange in Mohave 
County, Arizona, were originally available without charge 
from your office. We understand that no additional copies 
are available and find the $7.25 charge required for obtaining 
a copy from the National Technical Information Service pro- 
hibitively high when considered with the great number of 
other impact statements which we require. 

We strongly urge that in the future a sufficient number 
of impact statements be available from the BLM without charge 
to give the public adequate unimpeded opportunity to inform 
itself of the impacts of proposed agency actions without 
incurring the relatively substantial charge as well as delay 
entailed in obtaining impact statements from NTIS. The full 
disclosure purpose of NEPA is poorly served by imposing 
financial burdens on the concerned public eager to have the 
environmental impact statements. 



itocerely 



JEB : gen 
cc: 




JL. 



n E. Brysa; 




Burton Silcock, Director 
Bureau of Land Management 

Russell E. Train 

Chairman 

Council on Environmental Quality 



235 




United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

State Office 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



IN REPLY REFER TO 



1792 (910) 



June 5, 1973 

Mr. John E. Bryson 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

664 Hamilton Avenue 

Palo Alto, California 94301 

Dear Mr. Bryson: 

This acknowledges your letter of May 30, concerning the 
draft environmental statement for the Planet Ranch Town- 
site Exchange proposal. 

Our printing of the draft statement totalled 300 copies 
which were widely distributed through the use of a 
mailing list and in response to individual requests. 

To my knowledge your organization has not requested 
being placed on our mailing list to receive environ- 
mental statements. Your letter is being considered as 
such a request and a copy of our future publications 
will be sent to your Palo Alto address. 

Sincerely, 



sjLt?*m^ 



State Director 



236 




SIERRA CLUB &«fU< Qg» 

2014 East Broadway, Room 2i2, Tucson, Arizona 85719 



Satid 'stone Sculpture. Peach Wash, Arizona 



May 23, 1973 



Joe Fallini 

State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

3022 Federal Building 

Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Re: Proposed Exchange of Lands for the Planet Townsite 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
CU. L,".,\'D r.!Af,7.CEMl7IT 



Wi ?. 5 73 



?D 


/ , 




r.teii 


=• 5 D , vL 




[•'<.'. S 


-3 , 




1' ... "1 


r.'jfs«J 




1 :';i ; 


'",5 






SER 




PUL\ / 
CF .frl 


r ™ 










A 


CTIOW 






INFO. 



My comments are directed primarily to the question of whether or not 
this proposed exchange is in the public interest. I shall not attempt 
to critique the adequacy of the environmental impact statement other 
than to note that a detailed description of the environmental impact 
of a city of 20,000 or more persons would certainly fill several volumes. 

From reading the draft environmental impact statement, it is obvious 
tht the Planet Townsite is nothing more than just another speculative 
subdivision of which Arizona already has far too many. There is clearly 
no need for this type of subdivision in Mohave County or anywhere in 
Arizona. A recent study by the Arizona State Department of Economic 
Planning and Development showed that existing subdivisions covering 
640 acres or more in Mohave County have a population capacity of 544,800 
persons. This is far in excess of anyone's population projections for the 
foreseeable future in Mohave County, and many times greater than the 
population increase of 23,881 projected by that study for the year 2000. 

Since there is no need for the proposed development, the question arises 
as to whether or not the Bureau of Land Management can have any influence 
on the situation. In my opinion, by denying the proposed exchange, the 
Bureau of Land Management will significantly decrease the prospect for 
any subdivision development in the area. At the very minimum, the total 
amount of area impacted by the subdivision would be less in the absence 
of the proposed exchanges . 

In the event that there is some development activity without the exchanges, 
this would then increase the value of the public lands sought by the 
developer, thus making any future exchange more favorable to the federal 
government and the general public. 



237 



Joe Fallini 
page two 
May 23, 1973 



I recognize the desirability of consolidating federal land holdings 
in order to aid in their administration, however, this consolidation 
should not be used in such a way as to promote one of the worst land 
management problems in Arizona today; that of proliferating speculative 
subdivisions. Hopefully, within the coming decade the State of Arizona 
and the federal government will enact legislation controlling these 
activities. In the meantime, I urge that the Bureau of Land Management 
not be an accessory to the crime. 



erely , 



JAM:ab 





John A. McComb 
Southwest Representative 



cc : Margot Garcia 
Pat Overby 
Rae Pimley 



238 



Response to Comments 

by 
Sierra Club, Southwest Office 

Comment : Feel that the proposal is another speculative subdivision 
and cite DEPAD study concerning subdivisions in Arizona. 

Response : The study entitled "Large Scale Remote Subdivisions in 
Arizona" is contained as Appendix G. 

Comment : Denying the exchange would significantly decrease the 
prospect for subdivision development. 

Response : See letter from Ryley, Carlock, and Ralston , Appendix F. 

Comment : If development activity occurs without the exchange, the 

value of the intermingled Federal lands will increase, thus 
making any future exchange more favorable to the Government 
and the public. 

Response : While it is generally true that values of public lands will 
increase as a result of residential development on adjacent 
lands., the same holds true for the private lands being 
offered for exchange. 



239 



wafti iMm^timmtftitimmmm 




TUCSON AUDUBON SOCIETY 



P.O. BOX 3981 



May 5, 1973 



TUCSON A „ARIZ0NA 85717 

\'.VV.m>. STAT'i Off' 1 "-' 



nj. i/i'-i 



i 



'^1073 



Q * 



State Director, Bureau of land Management 
302? federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Sir* 



Thank you for the opportunity to coinraent on th#-proposed "'"Planet 
Townsite land exchange draft environmental impact statement 
(DES 7318), This action affects an area in Mohave County of 
particular interest to the Tucson Audubon Society for its present 
relatively unsooiled wildlife values. 

The statement appears to be a relatively accurate and thorough 
review of the present condition cif the area and a fairly comolete 
assesment of the impacts associated with the proposed exchange 
and its inevitable consequences. On balance, we find the conse- 
quences to be undesirable. It appears to us that Arizona Ranch 
and Metals company (ARM) intends to engage in yet another Arizona 
land sales scheme, and that the State Land Department and BIM 
are to be made cooperators in the scheme by making the whole 
thing possible. 

Aside from the relatively obfuscating organization of the document, 
the weakest area is discussion of alternatives. Our comments 
relate almost entirely to this defect. 

In our judgement, justification of this trade over the alternative 
of NO ACTION rests "on inaccurate assumptions. To begin, on nage 
77 the statement "ARM has indicated that residential development 
of the private lands will occur on 10,000 acres even though the 
exchange is not consummated" aopears to be not only unlikely, but 
a subtle form of blackmail. The enclosed maps indicate that 
ARM does not own 10,000 reasonably contiguous acres at present. 
"Further, of the area now owned, fully one third falls well within 
the 100 year flood plain of the Bill Williams river or Casteneda 
and other washes (p. 14) and is unsuited for development by that 
fact alone. Apparently ARM cannot develop on anything approaching 
the 10,000 acre scale without consummating the trade. 



conservation 



240 

education 



recreation 



IftfafaMMilfflHWM 



-2- 

To illustrate how ecologically unsound the entire proposal arrears 
to be, consider the conseouences of the seemingly innocent inten- 
tion to build an all-electric community (p. k) . In terms of 
energy delivered to the site, electricity is about 80«g efficient. 
However it suffers from 60^ losses at the generating nlant. nlus 
$ to 10^ during transmission, for an overall efficiency of enererv 
utilization near 2$<. Gas has small losses in production and trans- 
oort, and an efficiency aooroaching 50<g in the end use, hence also 
overall. Thus an all electric connumity, while in some respects 
more "convenient", is unconscionably wasteful of our diminishing 
energv resources. 

The Mexican Antelooe is rare in Arizona. Indeed, the Chlhuahuan 
subspecies oresent near Parker and using the Planet townslte area 
is not contiguous with other U. S. Populations. In general the 
antelope requires vast ooen 3paces for forage and safety. This 
remnant population is known to range into the area regularly, 
albeit intermittently (p. 19). In view of the tenuous status of 
this herd, the added people pressure plus loss of migration and 
forage areas inevitable In the proposed development may be their 
final push toward oblivion. 

There is no doubt that sufficient water Is available to surmort 
the proposed community (on. 11, li;, ij.1, 61). However, the unavoid- 
able degredation of water quality resulting from 10-2!^ return 
flows will exacerbate the already very difficult Colorado River 
water quality nroblem downstream of the Bill Williams river, 
less development would minimize this difficulty. In addition. 
added pressures on wildlife, including not only Antelone, but ^so 
Desert Bighorn Sheen, and rinarian dwellers such as the Yuma Clan- 
per Rail and Beaver, will be less with smaller developed are^s 
and populations. In sdort, In terms of pressure on resources 
Important on one hand to wildlife and the other to downs tresm 
farmers, and even Mexican -American relations, the less develop- 
ment the better. The alternative of no exchange has received 
short shrift, and quite unjustifiably so. The entire discussion 
of alternatives is vague, and deserves much more meaningful 
discussion. 

Finally, a recent report by the State of Arizona Department of 
Economic planning and Development Indicated that Arizona already 
has developed, or at least offered for sale, land in subdivisions, 
new communities, and innumerable schemes resembling that outlined 
in this statement, sufficient to accommodate one million MORE 
oeonle than the orojected Arizona population in the year 2000. 
Clearly Arizona is already over-subdivided. Hence the alternative 
of nojtetion should receive at least equal weight in the final 
impact statement. Arizona and the united States cannot afford 
more schemes like this one. It is not In the nubile Interest 
for the Bureau of Land Management to consummate the trade. 



Sincerely 




Dr. Charles Coston 

for Tillian °ingry. Conservation Chairman 

Copy to Andrew Bettwy, State Land Commissioner 



Response to Comments 

by 

Tucson Audubon Society 



Comment : Do not feel the proposed exchange should be consummated 
and a town built. Cites reasons as: may eliminate the 
antelope, an all electric community is not an efficient 
use of energy, water quality would be lowered, and the 
DEPAD study. 

Response : The townsite area is presently certificated by Citizens 
Utilities and the latter, rather than Arizona Public 
Service, may be the electrical utility for the actual 
development. Sufficient power can be wheeled on the 
Bureau of Reclamation's 69 KV line from Parker to 
Bagdad to service the development. The substation 
located at the junction of Mineral Wash and the Bill 
Williams River would be adequate for the revised low density 
development. APS does not believe new transmission lines, 
other than those from the 69 KV line to a substation 
inside the townsite, will be needed to handle the development. 

Probable impacts on the antelope are discussed in the 
text. 

See text and Appendix J for a discussion on water. 

The DEPAD study is contained in Appendix G. 

Comment : Questions whether or not Arizona Ranch and. Metals Co. 
could or would actually develop their private lands 
without the exchange. 

Response : See AR&M letter, Appendix F. Although areas within 
floodplains could not be developed for residential 
sites, associated urban uses, such as golf courses, 
could be developed on these areas. The modified 
500 homesite proposed development is not contingent 
upon the exchange. Approximately 400 of the homesites 
are on private land and could be developed without the 
exchange. 



242 




Student Chapter 
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

92 West State Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85021 




may 14, 1973 



Mr. Joe Fallini, State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
230 North ist Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 



Dear Mr. Fallini; 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
tU'. U.tlQ MANAGEMENT 



15 73 



ASSOC. S 
PCS 



1- 



TCSOURCES JJ 
TCCI-i SER ^ 



MGM'T SER 
PJB'.AFr 
CF — 



ACTION 
INFO. 



Having reviewed the draft environmental statement prepared 
by your office on the proposed Planet Townsite l.*id exchange, 
please accept the following comments for consideration when 
preparing the final statement. 

The university of Arizona Student Chapter of the Wildlife 
Society is cognizant of the desirability of blocking up 
federal lands to eliminate private holdings and thereby 
facilitate the land ownership pattern and management of 
such lands. 

We feel, however, that the proposed exchange involving 
9,646 acres of public lands along the Bill Williams River 
would not facilitate the management of adjacent lands. 
with the resulting increases in human impact on the area 
created by a new city, management would be made more 
difficult. 

we do not feel that the development of the proposed city 
on the Planet Ranch area is in the best interests of either 
the area's wildlife resources or the resource management 
responsibilities of your Bureau. 

We recognize that development of some of the private lands 
could take place even if additional state lands and private 
lands are not acquired. Any land exchange to block up land 
in the area would only facilitate unneeded and unnecessary 
urban development. 

The Planning Division of the Arizona Department of Economic 
Planning and Development compiled in March of this year a 
preliminary draft report entitled "Large Scale Remote sub- 
divisions in Arizona." 

243 



usavHWSUEU sam 



The most significant conclusions reached by the study were 
that "more land is now subdivided in the non-urban areas of 
Arizona than can be developed in the foreseeable future" 
and that "in many areas damage is done by subdivisions to 
the natural environment . " 

DEPAD ' S findings further support our assertion that a 
proposed city at rlanet Ranch is not in the best interests 
of the state of Arizona. If lands were exchanged and a city 
built, the area residents and developments will have an 
adverse, disruptive impact on the area's wildlife resources 
and hinder the Bureau in its management of the total resources 
of the area. 

as outlined in the environmental statement, the only two 
benefits expected to be accrued for wildlife by the proposed 
land exchange and city development would be an increase in 
irrigated pasture providing feed for Canadian geese and the 
acquisition of riparian habitat by the Bureau for the man- 
agement of associated wildlife species. 

ihe detrimental effects on wildlife species in the Planet 
Ranch area resulting from land exchange and city development 
would be much greater than the two tenuous benefits listed 
above. The destruction of wildlife habitat, animal dis- 
placement, harrassment and obstruction to natural animal 
movements and migrations would be too extensive and too 
costly to area wildlife populations to be permitted. 

In summary, the University of Arizona Student Chapter of the 
Wildlife Society feels that the proposed land exchange at 
Planet Ranch would not be in the best interest of the Bureau 
of Land Management and the area's wildlife resources. A new 
city in the area will mean more human impact making resource 
management exceedingly difficult. We respectfully request 
that the proposed land exchange not be consumated. 



sincerely, 




Stephen Williams, Chairman 
Environmental Quality Committee 



SW 

cc: Mr. Andrew L. Bettwy 



244 



nHmni^Hiimi^BHBBni 



Comment : 



Response to Comments 
by 

Student Chapter, The Wildlife Society 
University of Arizona 

Do not feel the proposal would facilitate management or 
be in the best interest of wildlife. Do not feel the 
project is needed, and cites the DEPAD Study of Remote 
Subdivisions in Arizona. 



Response: The study cited is contained in Appendix G. This statement 
points out that there will be adverse impacts on wildlife if 
the town is built. 

Comment : Request that the proposed exchange not be consummated. 

Response: A decision on the proposed exchanges will not be made until 
after this statement is completed. 



245 




Student Chapter 
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY 

UNIVERSITY OP ARIZONA 
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721 

SUPO Box 20212 




October 16, 1973 



Mr. Joseph T. Fallini, state Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 



Dear i v ir« rallini: 

Since i did not have a chance to talk with you on rridaj 
when I stopped by to pick up copies of the range inspec- 
tions for the Kofa that you had prepared for me, I was 
hoping that you could give me some indication of how the 
interagency meeting of Wednesday, October 10, went and 
what agreements or conclusions were reached. 

Also, our members would like to reaffirm their opposition 
to the proposed land exchange at the Planet Ranch townsite. 

After hearing Mr. Walter Smith and Mr. Frank Brophy,Jr. 
at the October 13 board meeting of the Arizona Wildlife 
Federation, we cannot help but feel that if the land 
exchange were to be consumated the Arizona itanch and metals 
Company would merely sell the property to liquidate its 
debts and leave the development to a perhaps unscrupulous 
company. 

wur unaltering tenet remains, if the Planet Ranch area 
is developed wildlife will suffer by direct loss of 
habitat and human encroachment. ±»earby public lands, 
affected by increased human impact, will become more 
difficult to manage. 

We would appreciate being advised of any final decision 
on this matter. 



,'.•:? I ZONA RTAT!; OfflCI 
tl, UN'.-) M.V'.V; '.•!'• 



OCT I 7 73 



UD/sw 



.ours in conservation, 
dlen sickens, rresident 

jy ; otej^hen Williams, uhairman 

Environmental yuality Committee 



246 



Response to Comments 

by 

Student Chapter The Wildlife Society 
University of Arizona 

Comment : Reaffirm position concerning proposed exchange and 
townsite development. 

Respons e; This is the second letter from the Student Chapter of fhe 
Wildlife Society, U of A. See comments on letter dated 
May 14, 1973, Appendix F. 



247 



FRANCIS J. RYLEY 
GEORGE READ CARLOCK 
JOSEPH P. RALSTON 
SAM P. APPLEWHITE, HT 
JOHN C. ELLINWOOD 
FRANK C, BROPHY, JR 
WILLIAM F. WILDER 
ROBERT E GUZIK 
W JOHN LISCHER 
RAYMOND M. HUNTER 
JAMES O. O'NEIL 
CHARLES L. CHESTER 



LAW OFFICES 

Ryley. Carlock & Ralston 

114 WEST ADAMS STREET 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 

June 25, 1973 



RECEIVED 

JUN 2 6 1973N. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT! 
ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 

AREA CODE 602 
TELEPHONE 2SS-770I 



SUN CITY OFFICE 

PLAZA DEL SOL WEST 

10771 WEST PEORIA AVENUE 

933-5972 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 

State Director 

Bureau of Land Management 

Federal Building 

230 North 1st Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003 

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 
Planet Ranch (PES 7318) 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 

On behalf of Arizona Ranch & Metals Co., a Nevada 
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "ARMCO" or "the 
Company") , we wish to submit the following comments on the 
draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Planet Town- 
site (DES 7318) . 

1. The Company believes the Draft Statement repre- 
sents an honest and informed effort to comply with Section 
102(C) of the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 
("NEPA" or "the Act") , given the broad directives of the Act 
and the limitations imposed by time, space, money and personnel 
In view of the present climate of opinion surrounding the ad- 
ministration of public lands and the commercial development of 
real estate, it is possible that many people will characterize 
the proposed Federal action as irresponsible and in aid of an- 
other speculative land sales promotion. The statement may 
lend itself to such criticism since there is no mention in 
it of the many hours and dollars of planning, research, dis- 
cussions and negotiations that have gone into the proposed ex- 
change and subsequent community development. Commencing 
early in 1970, the Company, spurred by the necessity of liqui- 
dating an oppressive nonproductive indebtedness incurred in 
the development and operation of the Mineral Hill Mine, began 
studying the possibility of a rural-urban development of its 
fee lands and commissioned the A. C. Martin Company of Los 
Angeles, California, to render a formal proposal. Upon com- 
pletion, the A. C. Martin proposal was shown to and discussed 
with Federal and State officials, and after numerous meet- 
ings with Federal and State officials and seasoned developers 



248 



■■■ ■-'•-•-"- 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Two 



of large land development projects, the present Planet Town- 
site was evolved and defined. The Company believes the pro- 
ject represents a genuine effort to accommodate the economic 
feasibility of a private development to the public's interests 
and needs. Much of the input into the project was arrived 
at as a result of considerable Federal planning, namely, the 
Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan promulgated by Interior 
Secretary Stewart Udall and the continuing Havasu resource 
area planning of the BLM as well as private studies such as 
the Samuel Turner Water Report, two A. C. Martin studies and 
an engineering study by Trico International, Inc. 

2. As mentioned, the region in which the proposed 
Planet Ranch Townsite is located has already been the subject 
of an intensive land use survey. The Lower Colorado River 
Land Use Plan comprises an area of 2 65 miles along the Lower 
Colorado River from Lake Mead to the Mexican border, at a 
width of from 2 to 60 miles. In the forward of the Plan, 
the then Secretary of the Interior, Stewart L. Udall, stated 
the basic purpose of the Plan: 

"The Plan . . . reserves for public outdoor 
recreation almost 400,000 acres along the most 
appealing river segment in a region now exper- 
iencing the fastest population growth in our 
Nation." 

3. Clearly, the long-range intent of this Plan is 
to provide all types of facilities for the steadily increas- 
ing recreational users which this vast water recreation area 
will attact. The die was cast for a relatively intensive 
use of this area when funds for the Lower Colorado River 
Water Storage Project were first appropriated. Now that it 
has long been completed, and history has lived up to its 
expectations, the time has passed in which to try to reverse 
the pattern of intensive use for which the area is clearly 
destined. Rather, the present efforts should be concentrated 
on the intelligent use of these sources for the benefit of 
vast adjacent populations. 

4. Therefore, it would seem incumbent upon the 
Bureau of Land Management to work toward objectives set forth 
in the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan with respect to 
providing more and better facilities to meet the needs of a 
rapidly increasing recreational demand for the resources of 
the area. The proposed exchange would in every way serve 



249 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Three 



this purpose. It is one of the recommended strategies of 
the Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan: 

"That new urbanized areas be established by 
the Bureau of Land Management in accordance 
with the Land Use Plan to support the economy 
and provide services to proposed recreation 
developments; and that potential urban areas 
be comprehensively planned to permit growth 
into economically and sociologically feasible 
towns of adequate size." (paragraph 16) 

5. More specifically, under "Policy Objectives and 
Guidelines" set forth in the Plan, objective number 10 ad- 
monishes the Federal agencies involved: 

"To provide for private, residential and organi- 
zational facility opportunities by making avail- 
able planned areas for urbanized private resi - 
dential occupancy and organization camps outside 
of the lands planned for park, recreation and 
wildlife uses . " 

The Planet Ranch Townsite would seem to fit these criteria 
perfectly. 

6. Availability of potable water is probably the 
most severely limiting factor in the selection of a town- 
site in the southwestern deserts. There are virtually no 
undeveloped river tributaries flowing into the Colorado River 
in this 265 mile stretch, except for the Bill Williams River. 
The large underflow of the Bill Williams River at the Planet 
Townsite assures a more than adequate high quality supply 

of water even in times of severe drought. If this water is 
not used beneficially at this point, it is lost to the State 
of Arizona, even though the right to use the water in Arizona 
is firmly established. 

7. The severe flooding of the Bill Williams River 
in past years is now largely controlled by the Alamo Dam, 
17 miles upstream from the Townsite. The terrain of the 
proposed Townsite is ideal. It is basically flat and uncut 
by major washes, except for the Castaneda Wash which can be 
utilized for greenbelt and other nondwelling purposes. The 
land slopes gently south toward the Bill Williams River, the 



250 



-"■^JH MW M BUIMUIMMJtUUllUUHmilUWl 



— — — — ■— — — — ~— ~~~— — 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Four 



floodplain of which will be used for agriculture and thus an 
additional greenbelt. The site is also well-defined by hills 
and low mountains on the three sides away from the river. 
The site does not encroach on any areas set aside for public 
parks, recreation areas, wildlife refuges or wildlife manage- 
ment areas; yet, it is still in reasonable proximity (about 
6 miles) to Lake Havasu and the Parker Strip, a major water 
recreational area. 

8. Any adverse environmental impact of this area 

by the proposed Townsite should be carefully weighed against 
the loss to this region of the above-mentioned townsite ad- 
vantages. There are simply not that many other townsites 
that meet the requirements set forth in the Land Use Plan, 
and of the six sites that are listed in the Plan, three are 
now under development and one has probably been abandoned 
as not feasible, the new Parker Townsite. 

9. With respect to the proposed exchange of private 
lands owned by the Company in the vicinity of the Havasu 
National Wildlife Refuge, one of the recommendations of the 
Land Use Plan has a direct bearing. It states: 

"The boundaries of the National Wildlife Refuges 
(should) be adjusted to add areas of higher 
wildlife values and exclude areas of lower wild- 
life values as described in the 'Land Use Plan.'" 

If this exchange is not consummated, several parcels of wild- 
life habitat equal in quality and immediately adjacent to the 
Havasu National Wildlife Refuge will be lost to this purpose. 
As has been stated previously, these lands also have the 
highest economic value of any lands owned by the Company, 
and it would have no choice but to convert them into their 
most intensive economic use, should the exchange be denied; 
unless, of course, the Government deemed the area of such 
significance as to warrant a legislative appropriation for 
the purchase of the ranch lands. 

10. Throughout the Impact Study much is made of the 
impact that the exchange and proposed development will have 
on the region surrounding the Project. However, of equal 
importance to an assessment of this impact are the trade-offs 
or gains in favor of the public interest which will be 
acquired or achieved. The most critical lands in the area 
from a wildlife standpoint are the riparian lands' above the 



251 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Five 



refuge. The Company is offering to surrender title to 
2 miles of riparian land, leaving no private holdings inter- 
twined with public lands. The same holds true for the 
eastern end of the Planet Ranch holdings where the Company 
proposes to surrender some 4 miles of river channel. In ex- 
change for such critical land areas, the Company is seeking 
title to lands which will extend approximately 1-1/2 miles 
north of the present fee lands held by the Company in an 
area that is best described as desert benchland or plateau. 
In view of the abundance of such desert lands in the State 
of Arizona and, in particular, in Mohave County, and the 
scarcity of riparian lands, the trade-offs would appear to 
be overwhelmingly in favor of the exchange. Compared to 
the wildlife activity of the riparian lands, there is rela- 
tively little use, either as habitat or for forage purposes, 
of the desert lands proposed for the Planet Townsite. While 
some may agonize over the impact of people on these desert 
lands which will preclude their limited use by an occasional 
Mexican Pronghorn Antelope or a Big Horn Sheep or a feral 
burro, the main thrust of such concern is really directed 
toward the impact of number of people in the general area. 
Opposition to the Townsite is, in fact, grounded in the be- 
lief that mankind and the citizens of Arizona are and will 
be much better off if human beings are restained from going 
into that area east of the Colorado River along the Bill 
Williams River to a point somewhere on the eastern borders 
of the Buckskin Mountains in the area of the Alamo Dam, 
excepting such intrusion only as would be permitted under 
conditions of a Federally declared wilderness area. The 
Company submits that there is too much private and State 
ownership in the area at this time to achieve this goal and 
that even if it were possible, given the vast expanses of 
Arizona desert available for just such activity and seclusion, 
the achievement of such a purpose would serve only the ends 
of ideology and not the future populations of the State of 
Arizona. In 1969 the then State Director of the BLM, Fred J. 
Weiler, advised the Arizona State Land Department that the 
Federal lands in Township 11 North, Range 16 West were in 
an area that was not a "key management area" and that it was 
not necessary "to retain these lands in support of a long- 
range Federal management program." Mr. Weiler expressed his 
hope that the State would acquire by the selection process 
the remaining public lands in that township and advised the 
State that if it did not, the Bureau would then proceed to 
classify these lands for "transfer out of Federal ownership 
under any other appropriate law." In commenting on these 
sentiments, we would only note that Mr. Weiler enjoyed a 



252 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Six 

reputation as a keen sportsman and a conservationaist as 
well as a very able public servant. 

11. Mohave County, in which the Townsite is located, 
has had the highest net in-migration rate of any county in 
the entire United States during the census period 1960-1970, 
U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports , 
Series P-25, No. 460, June, 1971 . Net in-migration for the 
period was 16,404 persons. Mohave County is the second larg- 
est county (areawise) in the State and has the lowest popula- 
tion density (2.0 persons per square mile) of any county. 
In 1971, approximately 71.7% of this population was rural, 
but 60% was in or centered around the towns of Kingman, Lake 
Havasu City and Bullhead City. The private aspect of the 
proposed exchange involves 5,981 of the approximate 32,336,577 
Federal (non-Indian) acres in the State or .00018% thereof, 
or .00096% of the 6,183,437 Federal (non-Indian) acres in 
Mohave County, Arizona Statistical Review, September, 1972 . 
The exchange will not significantly increase the approximately 
21% of the County's lands that are privately held. A re- 
cently issued draft of a study on "Large Scale Remote Sub- 
divisions in Arizona" by the Arizona Department of Economic 
Planning and Development (DEPAD) notes that Mohave County 
leads other Arizona counties in land undergoing subdivision 
with a total of 226,742 acres. Of these 226,742 acres only 
14,021 represent new communities or towns such as Lake Havasu 
City or the proposed Planet Townsite, whereas 127,356 repre- 
sent mere lot sales where facilities necessary for servicing 
a dwelling unit are not installed and 45,527 are so-called 
investment acres or lots of 3-1/3 acres or more lacking simi- 
lar facilities and deemed to be purchased primarily as invest- 
ment land for subdivision resale. Only 6,991 acres are lo- 
cated within a high demand recreation area. DEPAD also pro- 
jects an increase in Mohave County population by the year 
2000 of 23,881. It is reasonable to assume that a large per- 
centage of the increase will settle in or near the Colorado 
River since that is the principal attraction of Mohave County 
at this time. With the exception of the Bullhead City and 
Lake Havasu City areas there is insufficient private land 
suitable for community or new city development along the 
Colorado River or within its immediate environs in Mohave 
County. (See Land Status Map compiled by the Lower Colorado 
River Land Use Plan.) The Parker Strip and Lower Lake Havasu 
are prime recreational areas, but reasonably accessible pri- 
vate lands suitable for development on the Arizona side of 
the river are nearly exhausted, while demand therefore con- 
tinues to grow. 

253 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Seven 



12. On page 55 of the Draft Statement it is men- 
tioned that the proposed new community may be a drain upon 
the financial resources of Mohave County. While the fiscal 
problems of county government do not appear to be within 
the ambit of an environmental impact statement, neverthe- 
less, we recognize that such statements tend, out of an 
abundance of caution, to become an ominium gatherum of 
everyone's thoughts about the proposed land exchange and 
its consequences. There does not appear to be any basis for 
an inference that the new community would be a drain upon 
the financial resources of Mohave County. The history of 
Mohave County for the last decade demonstrates the contrary. 
During that period the county has seen the creation of a 
completely new community (Lake Havasu City) and a comparable 
expansion of what was previously a rather insignificant com- 
munity (Bullhead City) . In the decade since 1962 Mohave 
County has added a Planning and Zoning Commission with a pro- 
fessional staff, has replaced an inadequate hospital with a 
modern facility, has initiated a county-wide library system 
and a television translator service, and has, in general, 
upgraded all of its services; yet, the increase ($.48) in 
its tax rate has been less than that of the counties of 
Coconino ($.69), Yuma ($.78), Maricopa ($.65) and Pima ($1.76), 
Arizona Tax Research Association . 

13. In the last paragraph on page 14 of the Draft 
Statement much is made of floodplain problems within the 
Townsite area. While we believe that the Alamo Dam has 
severely curtailed the potential for flood damage in the 
floodplains adjacent to the main channel of the Bill Williams 
River, the Federal Government prudentially requires, under 
Executive Order No. 11296, 31 F.R. 10663, August 11, 1966, 
the BLM to attach appropriate restrictions upon the use of 
Federal lands located in floodplains conveyed by it to 
private interests. 

14. In the last paragraph on page 2 the Draft State- 
ment, prior to its enumerations of the various elements of 
the Company's new community project, cautions that there 

is no guarantee that the project to be described will be 
developed if the exchanges are consummated. We feel it would 
be pertinent to note, in reaction to this statement, that 
it would be difficult under any circumstances to create iron- 
clad guarantees that a particular project will be developed 
where the acquisition of a substantial portion of the land 

254 



HB^BBBHR 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Eight 



needed for the project is in doubt. The Company has expended 
such moneys and taken such steps as it believes to be pru- 
dent at this time to place itself in a position to carry out 
the project should the selected lands become available to it. 
In. this connection, the Company has engaged in numerous dis- 
cussions with McCulloch Properties, Inc., and as a result 
thereof, the latter has expressed an interest, if and when 
the selected lands are acquired, in undertaking the develop- 
ment of these lands in substantial accordance with the plan, 
and in so doing to bond for completion the improvements called 
for by the plan. McCulloch has reviewed the project and con- 
ducted preliminary engineering studies of its feasibility. 
Further, with respect to guarantees as to quality of develop- 
ment, it should be noted that the Federal Government has little, 
if any, say in such matters since the ultimate design and 
development of the community to be located on these lands 
would be controlled and determined by local governmental 
authorities. In this connection you should be advised that 
details of the proposed plan have been submitted to the 
Mohave County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning 
Commission for review and comment. It is our understanding 
that these authorities are generally favorable to the pro- 
posed project and have indicated that they will be vitally 
concerned in its implementation. 

15. On pages 41 and 59 of the Statement there is 
a discussion of the impact of the planned community upon 
the quality and quantity of water and groundwater. The 
Company has been advised by competent professional opinion, 
that given the location of the proposed townsite, the premise 
that it will be occupied by 7,000 familities and that efflu- 
ent from such occupancy will be recycled and further used 
for landscaping purposes, the total dissolved solids in the 
water returned to the groundwater table of the Bill Williams 
River should contain an average increase of approximately 
300 p. p.m. On page 12 of the Draft Statement it is noted 
that the existing groundwater in the Planet Valley contains 
total dissolved solids of 271 to 369. If the existing aver- 
age of total dissolved solids in the groundwater of the 
Bill Williams River is approximately 300 p. p.m., this would 
mean that total degradation of water flowing into the 
Colorado River as a subflow of the Bill Williams River 
would contain approximately 600 p. p.m. of total dissolved 
solids. It appears from official records, such as the State 



255 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Nine 



of California publication on water quality designated as 
California Document No. 3A, that the Colorado River at the 
site of the Metropolitan Water District Takeout located 
above Parker Dam contains up to 700 p. p.m. of total dis- 
solved solids. It does not appear, therefore, that the 
degradation of Colorado River water will equal or exceed 
that already existing in Lake Havasu. In 1968 the Commission 
on Water Quality Criteria of the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Commission published its criteria for drinking water, 
confirming as acceptable, water containing up to 500 p. p.m. 
of total dissolved solids. The United States Public Health 
Service contains the same criteria in its Pulication No. 956. 
Thus, existing supplies of groundwater available to the 
project are satisfactory in quality. Since it is not con- 
templated that there will be any need for domestic potable 
water downstream from the Townsite, the anticipated downstream 
degradation of the groundwater by the project should not have 
an adverse impact. 

16. On page 22 of the Draft Statement under the 
heading "A. Bill Williams Mountains" and again on page 52, 
the impression is left that this area, comprising some 
30,000 acres, presently qualifies as a primitive area. While 
the Company is not fully conversant with the standards for a 
BLM primitive area, it notes, from ownership and U.S.G.S. 
topographical maps of the area, that this area contains approxi- 
mately 10 sections of scattered private lands and a section 

and one-half of State lands as well as numerous Jeep trails 
including rather substantial trails the length of Standard 
Wash and Mohave Wash. 

17. In numbered paragraph 2 on page 52 of the Draft 
Statement there is a discussion of the impact of vehicles 

on Federal lands adjacent to the proposed townsite. In this 
connection we believe it would be well to remind readers 
of the Impact Statement that Federal agencies have authority 
under Executive Order No. 11644, promulgated February 8, 
1972 (37 F.R. 2877) to regulate all off-road activities of 
such vehicles on Federal lands. In addition, we note that 
the Draft Statement on page 48, the middle paragraph, ex- 
presses the belief that there will be increased harassment 
of beavers residing in the Bill Williams River in the area 
of the Narrows in Section 36, Township 11 North, Range 17 
West. We would only note in this regard that the proposed 
road into the project would pass approximately one- quarter of 
a mile north of the beaver ponds . The location of such a 
highway should not cause it to be a source of harassment for 
the beavers. 

256 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Ten 



18. On page 77 of the Draft Statement there is a 
discussion of alternatives which indicates that development 
of the Company's private lands would occur if the exchange is 
not consummated. We would like to emphasize at this time 
that such possibility is imminent in view of the increasing 
hardship imposed by the existing indebtedness of the Company. 
The spur to the development of the Company's lands has been 
the overhang of a nonproductive indebtedness which has been 

a drain upon the principals of the Company as far back as 
1968. 

19. On page 79 of the Draft Statement the alternative 
of public acquisition of the private and State lands in the 
area is discussed. We would like to advise the Bureau at 
this time that based on recent appraisals the Company would 
give serious consideration to the sale of its fee lands in 
the area for a cash sum of $6,000,000 or a sale and an ex- 
change involving cash of $3,000,000 and a exchange of accept- 
able lands having an approximate appraised value of $3,000,000, 

20. In the discussion of climate contained on 
pages 5, 6 and 7 of the Draft Statement, the general impres- 
sion given is that the Townsite is located in both a low 
desert zone and a medium-high desert zone. In the interest 
of accuracy, it should be made clear that the Townsite is in 
a low desert zone and that, therefore, the facts pertaining 
to that zone are more relevant to the discussion of the 
climate of the Townsite. There is also, perhaps, a possi- 
bility of confusion in the reader's mind in telling him on 
page 6 that the average rainfall is 6" per year while the 
mean annual evaporation is about 80". Clarification could 
probably be achieved by explaining the effects of such a 
combination. 

21. On page 9 of the Draft Statement mention is made 
that the highest point in the Townsite is in Section 1 at an 
elevation of 1,4 00 feet. As a technical matter, the 1,400 
foot elevation in Section 1 is located in Federal lands to be 
retained by the Federal Government and not exchanged. 

22. On page 11 and in Appendix D, Item 2, of the 
Draft Statement mention should be made of the fact that the 
Turner Report has been updated by Mr. Paul A. Manera, con- 
sulting hydrologist, Phoenix, Arizona, by means of a letter 
addressed to Trico International, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona, 
dated October 13, 1971, a copy of which has been previously 
furnished to your office. 



257 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Eleven 



23. On page 12 of the Statement there should be in- 
cluded among the enumerated consumptive uses of water at the 
Planet Ranch those of stock watering and domestic use. 

24. In the last paragraph on page 12 of the State- 
ment and elsewhere, reference is made to the "Planet Valley." 
There does not appear to be any definition of the Planet 
Valley in the Statement and perhaps it should be explained to 
the readers that the Planet Valley is basically that portion 
of the Bill Williams River and adjacent floodplain within 
Township 11 North, Range 16 West, lying immediately south of 
the proposed Planet Townsite. 

25. On page 49 of the Draft Statement it is noted 
that the installation of gas and electric power lines would 
disturb wildlife beyond the confines of the project. The 
Company does not believe there will be an increase in such 
disturbance from these sources since natural gas will be 
installed underground and can be brought to the project along 
an existing high tension line right-of-way. Power lines 
have already been extended to the Ranch Headquarters and need 
only be extended a short distance from their present termi- 
nals to the Townsite. Once on the Townsite, power lines will 
be installed underground. 

26. On page 75 of the Statement mention is made of 
residential development of private properties downstream 

from the Townsite along the Bill Williams River. To our knowl- 
edge ARMCO is the last downstream owner of private property 
on the Bill Williams River, and it does not plan development 
of such property if the Townsite. lands can be acquired. 

27. The following comments pertain primarily to 
style and organization of information and are intended only 
to assist the reader in his understanding of the project. 

(a) The second sentence of paragraph 1 on 
page 1 of the EIS should be revised to read as 
follows : 

Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. of Salt Lake 
City, Utah, and Parker, Arizona, and the 
Arizona State Land Department have selected 
for exchange 5,981.10 acres and 3,665.27 
acres, respectively, of Federal lands for 
the purpose of consolidating private and 
State land holdings and to facilitate 
Arizona Ranch & Metals Co.'s development 



258 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Twelve 



of a planned community for about 7,000 
families on benchlands north of the Bill 
Williams River in the area presently known 
as the Planet Ranch (Map 1) . The Planet 
Ranch consists of lands of Arizona Ranch & 
Metals Co., along and north of the Bill 
Williams River, in Township 11 North, Range 
16 West, and Townships 10 and 11 North, 
Range 15 West, G&SRB&M. The Company also 
owns fee lands along the Bill Williams River 
in Township 11 North, Range 17 West, known 
as the Middle or Esquerra Ranch (portions 
of Sections 35 and 36) and the Lower or 
Kohen Ranch (portions of Sections 27, 28, 
29 and 33) . 

(b) The first sentence on page 2 of the EIS 
should be modified to read as follows: 

Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. is proposing to 
offer 2,04 acres of their fee lands along 
the Bill Williams River east and west of 
the Planet Ranch in exchange for 5,981.10 
acres of Federal land located in general on 
the desert benchlands north of the river in 
an area where the Company presently holds 
approximately 4,000 acres of fee lands. 

(c) The third, fourth and fifth sentences 
on page 2 of the EIS should be amended as follows: 

The Arizona State Land Department has stated 
that the State is willing to make available 
the 4-3/4 sections of State land inside the 
boundaries of the proposed townsite either 
by exchange or public sale, and that it 
wants to retain and acquire a solid block 
of State land north of the proposed townsite 
for sale or lease for the benefit of the 
Common School Trust Fund after development. 
The School Fund would then benefit by the 
increased lease or sale value of the State 
lands. The proposed exchange would improve 
the Federal land ownership pattern by block- 
ing up Federal lands, and eliminating inter- 



259 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Thirteen 



mingled or isolated Federal, State and pri- 
vate land holdings in the areas as previously 
recommended by former Arizona State Director, 
Fred J. Weiler, in 1969. 

(d) The fourth sentence of paragraph 1 on 
page 3 should be amended as follows : 



A buffer zone of about 520 acres located in 
Yuma County south of the proposed community 
site and the Bill Williams River would not 
be developed. The Bill Williams River flood- 
plain and the wash bottoms would be preserved 
as greenbelt and open spaces for ranch and 
farm activities of the Company . 

(e) The third sentence of paragraph 2 on page 

3 should be deleted and the following sentence added 
to paragraph 4 on page 4 . 

Irrigated pasture in the river floodplains 
for use in the Company's cattle operation will 
be increased from 1,100 acres to about 2,000 
acres on the Planet Ranch. 

(f) The Company believes that Map No. 3 
can be improved if the bottom box and legend are 
eliminated and a cross-hatched design is substi- 
tuted for the top box. Further, the second 
legend on Map No . 3 should be corrected to state 
that the number of acres sought by ARMCO is 
5,981.10. The existing cross-hatched box and 
legend conveys the impression that there is 
competition between the State and the Company 
for the lands so marked on the map, when, in 
fact, there is no such competition. 

(g) There might be added to the last sentence 
on page 14 the following: 

. . . and Federal lands to be conveyed in 
the proposed exchange would contain deed 
restrictions prohibiting dwellings or other 
permanent structures from being located in 
these areas . 



260 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Fourteen 



(h) Under the last paragraph on page 16 and 
as prefatory to the first sentence thereof, the 
following statement should be made: 

Except for the presence of a high tension 
power line and service road and a county 
highway, the townsite is in a virtually un- 
disturbed, natural condition. 

(i) The last sentence in the first paragraph 
on page 17 might be revised to read as follows: 

A well-used ranch road connects this road 
with the Mohave County road that begins at 
the north side of the Bill Williams River, 
traverses the townsite from south to north 
and joins the Mohave County Yucca-Alamo Dam 
Road. 

(j) The first sentence of Paragraph 3 on page 
17 might be revised as follows: 

Highway construction along the north side 
of the Bill Williams River from Lake Havasu 
to Alamo Dam and thence to Highway 93 in 
the vicinity of Date Creek has been proposed 
by the Four Corners Regional Commission as 
part of a proposed effort to create "a better 
connection between Central Arizona and the 
Colorado River Zone . 

(k) The first sentence of the last paragraph 
on page 26 should be amended as follows: 

An archaeological reconnaissance of the 
5,981.10 Federal acres selected in the ex- 
change was made by Prescott College in 
August, 1972, at the request of Arizona 
Ranch & Metals Co. 

(1) Paragraph 4 on page 55 of the Statement 
should be revised to read: 

Until a municipal government is formed, Mohave 
County would have to provide the basic govern- 
mental services such as police protection, 
maintenance of a sanitary land fill, planning 



261 



Mr. Joseph Fallini 
June 25, 1973 
Page Fifteen 

and zoning for the area, issuance of building 
permits and business licenses and road mainte- 
nance of those roads dedicated to the County. 
The County would also have to provide those 
other services such as tax assessment, health 
and welfare facilities and benefits which 
counties normally provide even in urban areas . 
School districts, either existing or to be 
established, would have to provide, maintain 
and operate schools and school transportation 
to the new community. 

Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. appreciates the opportunity 
of commenting upon the Draft Statement. 

Yours very truly, 

RYLEY, CARLOCK & RALSTON 



By 




Frank C. Brophy, Jr. 

FCB : lv 

cc: Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. 




262 



Response to Comments 
by 

Arizona Ranch and Metals Co . 
(Ryley, Carlock & Ralston) 

Comment : Explanation of reasons for proposing to develop town. 

Response : None 

Comment fa 2, 3, 4, and 5 : Refers to the Lower Colorado Land Use Plan 
published in January 1964. 

Response : Figure 11, in this plan indicates that the area 
presently proposed for a townsite should be managed as a 
National Cooperative Land and Wildlife Management Area. 

Comment: Points out that the Bill Williams River is the only 

undeveloped river flowing into the Colorado within a 265- 
mile stretch. There is sufficient water to support the 
development, and water will be lost to the State of Arizona 
if it is not used. 

Response : S ee Appendix J 

. Comment #7 : Flooding of Bill Williams River is largely controlled by 

Alamo dam; the terrain is ideal for a townsite and does 

not encroach on areas set aside for parks, refuges, etc. 
Response : See items 2, 3, 4, and 5 above. 



263 






.. :■»-!-.. ^3ii-.:i:c.1'.M.:'jr- i ''ji 1 .'.ai., . 



Arizona Ranch and Metals Co., cont'd 

Comment #8: Points out that there are not many townsites available 

meeting the requirements set out in the Lower Colorado Land 
Use Plan and that environmental impacts should be weighed 
against loss of this site if it is not developed. 

Response: Such a comparison would, in effect, be comparing environ- 
mental considerations against economic conditions. Such 
considerations must be made prior to a final decision 
concerning the proposed land exchange. 

Comment #9 : Lower Colorado River Land Use Plan indicates refuge boundaries 
should be adjusted. If exchange is not consummated, Arizona 
Ranch and Metals lands that are valuable for refuge purposes 
will be converted to their most intensive economic use 
unless purchased by the Government. 

Response : This possibility is pointed out in the statement. The revised 
exchange proposalsdoes not include these lands. 

Comment : Presents arguments in favor of the proposed exchange; points 

out benefits of Government acquiring approximately 2 miles 

of riparian land and 4 miles of river channel. Indicates 

that some people feel the area should be a wilderness area 

and agonize over impact that will preclude bighorn sheep 

and antelope from using the area. 

Response : Map No. 2 shows the lands offered by the altered proposal 
for exchange by AR&M. 



264 



Arizona Ranch and Metals Co., cont'd 



Comment #11: 



Response: 



Comment #12; 



Response: 



Comment #13: 



Cites figures relating to growth of population in Mohave 
County which creates a demand for private lands suitable 
for development. Lists figures from DEPAD study, indicating 
a projected population increase in Mohave County of 23,881 
by the year 2000. 

The report mentioned was entitled "Large Scale Remote Sub- 
divisions in Arizona - A Preliminary Draft!' dated March 2, 
1973. The draft was prepared by the Arizona Department 
of Economic Planning and Development - Planning Division. 
The draft indicates that Mohave County presently has 46 
subdivisions over 640 acres in size, covering 226,742 acres 
of private land. (The proposed Planet townsite is not in- 
cluded in these figures.) Table #2 of the draft indicates 
that the existing subdivisions have a computed population 
capacity of 544,800. The population of Mohave County is 

expected to be 54,981 by the year 2000. The study is con- 
tained in Appendix G. 

Does not feel fiscal problems of Mohave County should be 

discussed in statement, and points out accomplishments of 

county . 

Possible impacts on the social and economic conditions of the 

county are discussed in the text. 

Points out that Alamo Dam limits potential for flood damage 

along the main channel of the Bill Williams River, and E.O. 

11296 requires BLM to place certain restrictions on lands 



265 



Arizona Ranch and Metals Co., cont'd 

located in flood plains when they pass from Federal to 
private ownership. 
Response: The Federal lands involved are not within the flood plain 

of the Bill Williams River. 

Comment #14 : Points out that it would be difficult for anyone to make iron 
clad guarantees as to type of development when so much depends 
on acquisition of land for the project. States that McCulloch 
Properties Inc. has reviewed the project, conducted preliminary 
engineering studies, and expressed an interest in undertaking 
the development of these lands in substantial accordance with 
the plan. Notes that Federal Government has little, if any, 
say in such matters since ultimate design and development 
would be controlled by local governmental authorities. 
Indicates that County Board of Supervisors and Planning Com- 
mission general favor the proposed project. 

Response : McCulloch Properties Inc. has had considerable experience 

with subdivision and development. Their most widely publicized 
project is probably Lake Havasu City, . located approximately 
26 air miles northwest of the proposed Planet townsite. By 
letter dated May 21, 1973, from Mohave County Board of 
Supervisors (Appendix F) , the Board indicated agreement 
with the proposal. 



266 



Arizona Ranch and Metals Co. , cont'd 

Comment #15 : Points out that there should be sufficient water to support 

the development. Also that degradation of downstream ground- 
water should not have an adverse impact since there will be no 
need for domestic potable water downstream. 

Response : See last paragraph on page k of letter from U.S. Bureau of 
Reclamation (Appendix F) . 

Comment #16 : Points out that area does not contain the necessary require- 
ments to qualify as a primitive area. 

Response : A definition of Primitive Areas appears in subpart 2071.1(b) 
(1) (v) 43 CFR: "Primitive areas: Extensive natural, wild, 
and undeveloped areas and settings essentially removed from 
the effects of civilization. Essential characteristics are 
that the natural environment has not been disturbed by 
commercial utilization and that the areas are without 
mechanized transportation." 

The BLM has interpreted the term "mechanized transportation" 
to mean formally constructed roads. Within this context, 
the area within the Bill Williams mountains could qualify 
as a primitive area. 

Comment #17: Points out that Federal agencies have authority to regulate 
off-road vehicle use. Indicates road will be h, mile from 
beaver ponds. 



267 



IMU IMMia MB^— HBWET" . 



Arizona Ranch and Metals Co., cont'd 



Response : 

Comment #18 : 

Response : 
Comment #19 : 

Response : 



Text has been revised concerning off-road vehicle 
use and beaver dams. 

Emphasizes that private lands will be developed 
even if exchange is not consummated. 

This is pointed out in the statement. 

Indicates company would consider sale of its 
private lands. 

As noted in the text under alternatives, the 
Bureau of Land Management does not have authority 
to purchase State. or private lands. 



Comment #20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 : Points out items that are in error 
or require further clarification. 



Response : 
Comment #25 : 

Response : 



Text has been revised. 

Does not feel that gas and power lines will disturb 
wildlife. 

Disturbance to wildlife would occur during construction. 



Comment #26 and 27 : Points out errors and suggests areas where clari- 
fication would help the reader. 



Response : 



Text and maps have been revised to reflect these items. 



268 



: 



FRANCIS J. RYLEY 
GEORGE READ CARLOCK 
JOSEPH P. RALSTON 
SAM P. APPLEWHITE, m 
JOHN C. ELLINWOOD 
FRANK C. BROPHY, JR. 
WILLIAM F. WILDER 
ROBERT E. GUZIK 
W JOHN LISCHER 
RAYMOND M. HUNTER 
JAMES D. O'NEIL 
CHARLES L.CHESTER 
EDWIN A. HINER 



LAW OFFICES 

Ryley, Carlock & Ralston 

114 WEST ADAMS STREET 
PHOENIX, ARIZONA B5003 

December 19, 1973 



AREA CODE 602 
TELEPHONE 2SS-770I 



SUN CITY OFFICE 

PLAZA DEL SOL WEST 

10771 WEST PEORIA AVENUE 

933-5972 



Mr. Renard Okeson 
State Director's Office 
Bureau of Land Management 
230 North First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Re : Planet Ranch Townsite 

Dear Mr. Okeson: 

Enclosed is a copy of a letter from the Arizona 
Highway Department, Mr. John R. Miller, containing 
information as to traffic on local highways that would 
be generated by the Planet Townsite. This information 
may be helpful in answering some of the inquiries in 
the comments. If you feel further elaboration is 
necessary, please advise. 

Yours very truly, 

RYLEY, CARLOCK & RALSTON 



FCB:lv 
Enclosure 




269 



JACK WILLIAMS 

GOVERNOR 

LEW DAVIS 
CHAIRMAN 

RUDY E. CAMPBELL 

VICE CHAIRMAN 

WALTER W. SURRETT 

MEMBER 

WALTER A. NELSON 
MEMBER 

LEN W. MATTICE 
MEMBER 




■X. 



'N '\ 






ii nuMifi'mr ruin win if 



JUSTIN HERMAN 
STATE HIOHWAY DIRECTOR 



WM. N. PRICE 
STATE HIOHWAY ENGINEER 



ARIZONA HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 

Phoenix j Arizona 85 007 
17 December 1973 




DECEIVED 

1 9 1973 



Mr. Frank Brophy 
Ryley, Carlock & Ralston 
114 "West Adams 
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 

Dear Mr. Brophy: 



Reference is made to your request for the Arizona Highway Department's 
forecast of traffic volumes that would be generated by a planned development 
on or in the vicinity of the Planet Ranch near the Bill Williams River. 

Traffic studies, for the purpose of analogies, were taken at develop- 
ments near Roosevelt Lake and at Lake Havasu City. These traffic studies 
revealed the following data and the results are applied to the proposed 
development. 



For Analogy: 

External trips per dwelling unit 
Persons per dwelling unit 
Persons per vehicle 
Vehicles per dwelling unit 



0.72 

3. 19 (average) 

1.47 

1. 15 



Analogy applied to the proposed development 1995 Forecast: 

Assuming a rate of ten (10) dwellings per month for Z0 years = 2400 
dwelling units. 



2400 x 3. 19 
2400 x 0.72 



765 Population 
1750 (1800) ADT 



Planet Ranch Road (50-5 Turning Movement) = 1800 ADT 
State 95 - 3100 ADT 

State 95 at its present junction with the Planet Ranch Road, with the 
additional traffic volume from the proposed development, would not require 
a higher type design than that in place at the present time. 



270 



Mr. Frank Brophy 
17 December 1973 
Page 2 

(See attached turning movement diagram). 

Should a more in depth be required or other information needed, 
please advise. 

Very truly yours, 

CHAS. I. SMITH, Jr. 
Planning Survey Engineer 

JOHN R„ MILLER 
Transportation Planner 
Forecast Section 

JRM/sjn 

attachments 



271 



ri> 1 1 i— ^ ' 



TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM .("!!!) 






<D< r^£ff 



J2, c?e?o 



j/ooo 



sr-?^r 



sr>?£- 



J/0OO 



to 



^.C?CC 









(ft 

Ss 

5 



3LO0O ^© 






X- 



■$ 

Q 



F&& | | ?&& 



/?€>& 






t 

To 






ZoW 



INTERSECTION TRAFFIC STUDY 
INTERSECTION ^SM^IJAn^t-Ro.^^ 

1.0 C AT 1 N M.^^^.M/J.M^t:iLiix..ua.^...lZ^.£^' 

TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM 

HOU R &£ut£jS^dJ33£^dMZl. 

19._ — 



'■y 



^A 



^3 



Response to Comments 
by 
Arizona Highway Department 

Comment : Offers information concerning the impact that development 
of Planet townsite would have on State 95. 

Response : This concerns only the access to and from State 95 and it 

is still reasonable to assume that safety requirements would 
necessitate rebuilding the majority of the county road from 
State 95 to Planet Ranch. 



273 



.. fAnRm 






ARIZONA STATE OFf 

L-AKE HAVASU ACRES . .JLSS^JCT fr-Sfcn fprlT i lr p i 1 ,' rii i i i ■ Tfll =g lul l itw H ^'il 'PI 'till ilfty i 6 '!<. 




f «, X*- J^- ^^ w^^fo**- 







..:,■: : IBBB« 



Response to Comments 

by 
Dick Capra 

Comment : Expresses support for development and feels that Mohave 
County is large enough to support another town. 

Response : The study contained in Appendix G indicates that * 

there are 46 subdivisions in Mohave County with a capacity 
of 544,800 people. 



275 



_*. -- _ i giM^smf tntitttt'SAm tik 



, n-.Tifii, iitf1Hii'?TFiatfiWffi.tafnrftfr.ii<J.i. * i , ;u. 



-v j aJi*..-*bi,i!fc-.* i «iiu i i.-.. ^a^m— 



AFFILIATED GYNECOLOGISTS, LTD. 

925 east Mcdowell road • phoenix, Arizona ssooe • telephone 254-5843 



CHARLES VAN EPPS, M.D. 

ROBERT E. JONES, M.D. 

WILLIAM D. LAWRENCE, M.D. 

NORMAN B. BROWN. M.D. 

ALAN JACK MESSINGEK, M.D. 

M. JOHN PEACHEY. JR., M.D. 

DALLAS R. DEMMITT, M.S.W. 

FAMILY COUNSELOR 



May 15,19 73 



Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
230 N. First Avenue 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Sirs: 

I have recently read about what may happen in the Planet Ranch 
area in Western Arizona. I am awe 11 acquainted with this Ranch, having 
been a friend of the foreman there for many years. I believe there 
is certainly enough beautiful areas in Arizona already under development 
for the number of people that we have in the foreseeable future and 
would hate to see another spotty area of development right in the middle 
of one of the best wild life areas in the Southwest. 

I would strongly urge that there be no "people" development in 
this area. 



Yours very truly, 



WDL : kg 




ARIZONA STATE OFFICF. 
PJ LAHO MANAGEMENT 



MAY 1 6 73 



WILLIAM D. LAWRENCE, M.D, 




276 



■ ■ .■■■ , 



Response to Comments 

by 
William D. Lawrence, M.D . 

Comment : Urges that there be no "people" development in this area, 
and feels that Arizona has sufficient land now available 
for development. 

Response : Appendix G contains a study of lands presently subdivided 
in Arizona. AR&M feels that the kind of development they 
are proposing would have sufficient demand to justify their 
expenditure of development funds. 



277 



June 15, 1973 



ksnnEAmcc 



JUN 1873 



St»te Director's Office 
Bureau of Land Bi*a*ge»eRt 
T J.S. Department of later lor 
3022 Sederal Bldg. 
230 N. Pisrt Avenue 
Fhoeaix, Arizoaa 85025 

Dear Sir: 



*W 


,/ 


ASSOC. S» 


y 


RS 


i/ 


WESQKMKES 


TCCHSOf 


mm? sol 




PJS.MF 


CF 


ACTION 




sec me 



I am advised that the Bureau Is preseatly «oa- 
sideriag a trade to the Plaaet Raaeh ia Westera 
Arizoaa for the developmeat of a towasite. 

Having visited the, area some fifteen years ago, 
I ©amnot Imagiae a more remote or ualikely spot 
for a twra. I would hate to see sueh am area 
developed if it meaat a threat to bighora sheep 
or other end emi© species ia the area. 

Would you please mail a eopy of the environmental 
impaat statement for this pro j est ia order that 
I may better evaluate the preseat situation. 



Thank you. 




y%UA, 



Tra@y Stair 

518 Muriel Plaee 

Tusson, Arizona 85704 



SJB 



Response to Comments 
by 
Tracy Stair 

Comment : Does not want area developed if it would threaten 
wildlife. 

Response : The statement points out that the proposed development 
would have significant adverse impacts on wildlife. 



279 



APPENDIX G 



'w 



LARGE SCALE REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS IN ARIZONA 



A Preliminary Draft 



Prepared By- 
Arizona Department of 
Economic Planning and Development 



Planning Division 



March 2, 1973 
280 



LARGE SCALE REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS IN ARIZONA 

■■w 

I ntroduction 

The State of Arizona continues to attract many thousands of new 
residents each year. From an estimated 1972 population of 1,925,000 
people, Arizona's population is expected to reach 4,431,000 by the year 

2000--an increase of 2, 506, 000 residents in the next 28 years. 

I 
Approximately 80% of Arizona's residents'; live in its urban areas 

and the bulk of the future population increase is expected to occur in anJL- 

around its two largest cities. By the year 2000 it is expected that almost 

2, 000, 000 more people will move into the Maricopa County-Phoenix, and 

the Pima County-Tucson urban areas. 

In addition to the predicted population- growth around Phoenix and 
Tucson, there has been considerable land subdividing in geographic areas 
that are relatively remote from urban centers. There is little documen- 
tation available concerning the statewide impact of remote subdivisions. 
It is not yet known to what extent the large amount of remote subdivision 
activity will alter Arizona's expected urban and rural growth patterns. 
The potential effect of these remote subdivisions on Arizona's natural 
environment and economic growth needs to be studied. 

The Department of Economic Planning and Development has com- 
pleted a preliminary survey of 182 large scale remote subdivision in 
Arizona. This paper is a summary of the survey and is the first step in an 
effort to examine and analyze one possible component of future urban 
expansion. 281 



■y:, .;;:.:■ .,: . ■■■ ■ "■" 



m --gJ W i|!EJ*W9IC/*0tJiSW!'l.,Siefcrf'i* ! .liv: 



' „ m , k „^*--:iM^^J^'.J^^&*AiViiii^J.«.* a l 



., ^ii^&uafli A a-;w» 



V 



Definitions 



For purposes of this study, the following definitions were used: 



Subdivision: 



The division of land into four or more 
lots for the purpose of sale. 



Large Scale: 640 acres or more. 

Remote: Not a logical extension of an existing 

urban area. 

Outside of the three mile jurisdiction of 
incorporated areas. 



Types of Remote Subdivisions 

Five types of subdivisions were identified in the preliminary study. 

The categories were defined on the basis of lot size and/or availability of 

basic facilities necessary for servicing a dwelling unit. Placement of 

each subdivision within a category was generally made by the county 

planners assisting with the data collection. 

Home sites: The basic facilities necessary for servic- 

ing a dwelling unit have been installed. 

Lot size does not exceed 3 1/3 acres. 

Recreational: Located within a high demand recreation 
area. 

The basic facilities necessary for servic- 
ing a permanent or second home have been 
installed. 

Lot size does not exceed 3 1/3 acres. 



'Several subdivisions located within the three mile limit of an incorporated 
area were included because they were not considered to be a logical exten- 
sion of an existing developed urban area. 

282 



Lot Sales: 



Investment: 



New Town: 



The basic facilities necessary for servic- 
ing a dwelling unit are not installed. 

Lot size does not exceed 3 1/3 acres. 

The basic facilities necessary for servic- 
ing a dwelling unit are not installed; 

Lot size is 3 1/3 acres or more. 

Lots are sold to purchaser whose apparent 
intent is to re -sell later at a profit. 

Relatively independent, self-contained 
planned community. 

Large enough to support a range of housing 
types and to provide employment opportunity 
within its boundaries. 

A balanced range or social and cultural 
opportunities is provided by the develop- 
ment plan. 

Basic facilities necessary for servicing a 
dwelling unit are installed. Proportions 
of industrial, commercial, residential, 
public facilities, and open space areas are 
specified in the planning process. 



Extent of Subdivision Activity 

Table #1 shows the extent of the large scale remote subdivision 
activity in Arizona. Mohave County contains the largest number of 
subdivisions (46) followed by Cochise County (30) and Maricopa County 
(26). Mohave County contains the most land undergoing subdivision with a total 
of over 22.G, 000 acres. Yavapai County contains the second largest 
amount with over 161,000 acres. Approximately 80% of the state- 
wide total of remote subdivided acreage is found in . the "lot 

283 



( 

ARIZONA'S REMOTE SUBDIVISIONS 



BY LAND AREA AND SUBDIVISION TYPE 





No. of . 
























Subdivisions 




Home sites 


Recreation 


Lc 


>t Sales 


Investment 


New Town 




Included 


Total 




















Countv 


In Study 


Acres 


No. 


Acres 


No. Acres 


No. 


Acres 


No. 


Acres 


No. 


Acres? 


Apache 


7 


53,930 








7 


53,930 






in— an 




Cochise 


30 


116, 357 


5 


19,600 




22 


78,610 


2 


2, 130 


1 


6.0171 


Coconino 


14 


83,085 


1 


2,000 


4 3,757 


4 


18, 385 


5 


58,943 




,:•'- 


Gila 


N* 


-N- 
















, 


..■£ 


Graham 


N* 


-N- 


















% 


Greenlee 


N* 


-N- 


















P 


Maricopa 


26 


118,243 


23 


89, 448 




1 


19,200 






2 


9.600 


Mohave 


<6 


226,742 


5 


32,847 


3 6,991 


23 


127, 356 


13 


45, §27 


S- 


14. 021 


Navajo 


11 


38, 297 








8 


18, 5S0 


3 


19, 747 




t!9 


Pima 


15 


83,529 








6 


59,216 


7 


17, Of 8 


8 


7.M4 


Pinal 


3 


35, 400 


1 


5,000- 




4 


17,740 


2 


9, 140 


1 


3,8tf 


Santa Cruz 6 


98,000 






" 


4 


94, 7C0 


2 


3, 300 




1 

• * 


Yavapai 


15 


161,427 


2 


14,000 




13 


147,427 








■4 


Yuma 


4 

132 


11,388 

1,016,402 


37 






_3 

95 


"5,500 
640,594 


35 


5,888 
161,793 


8 




TOTAL 


162, 895 


7 10,748 


40, 172 | 



* No information available. 



oo 



"Tk M« J/ / 



sales" and "investment" categories. These are the categories which do 
not have the basic facilities necessary for servicing a dwelling unit. 
Three counties were not included in the totals because they do not contain 
any large scale remote subdivisions, primarily due to the large percent 
of the land which is in public ownership. 

Comparison of Subdivisions 
with Incorporated Communities 

As seen in Table .#1, over 1,016,402 acres of private lands in remote 

areas are being subdivided. If smaller subdivisions were included, this 

total acreage figure would be much larger. Translating the acreage of 

the large scale subdivisions into square miles and comparing it to the 

incorporated areas in Arizona, yields the following information: 

Percent of 
Area Private Lands 

(Square Miles) in Arizona 

Remote Subdivisions 1,588 9. 13 

Incorporated Areas 947 5. 44 

Total 2,535 14.57 

It is apparent that considerably more land is being subdivided 

outside of Arizona's incorporated cities and towns than is contained within 

the incorporated city limits. It is also likely that even more of Arizona's 

privately owned remote lands will be subdivided in the near future. 

Population Projections and Subdivision Impact 

Table \\Z displays current population statistics and compares them 
with projected population figures. For purposes of the study, it was 

285 



( 



ARIZONA POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND 



( 



POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION IMPACT 



S3 

00 













No. of 


Computed 




1970 


1972 


ATOM 


Population 


Subdivisions 


Population 




Census of 


AESC 


2000 


Increase 


Included in 


Capacity of 
Subdivisions 




Population 


Estimate 


Projections 


Projected 


Study 2 


Aoache 


32, 304 


33, 500 


78,750 


45,250 


7 


79,900 


Cochise 


61,918 


66, 500 


112, 428 


45,928 


30 


527, 400 


Coconino 


43, 326 


50, 000 


72,777 


22, 777 


14 


117,200 


Gila 


28,255 


32, 000 


75, 831 


43, 831 





-0- 


Graham 


16, 578 


17,700 


26,456 


8,756 





-0- 


Greenlee 


10, 300 


10,600 


28,759 


18, 159 





-0- 


Maricopa 


969,425 


1,053, 000 


2,531,520 


1,473,520 


26. 


556,800 


Mohave 


25, 857 


31, 100 


54, 981 


23, 881 


46 


544, 800 


" Navajo 


47,559 


50, 300 


113, 385 


63,085 


1 1 


63, 300 


Pima 


351,667 


382, 000 


902,786 


520,786 


15 


453,400 


Pinal 


63, 579 


73, 500 


140,000 


66,500 


8 


178, 300 


Santa Cruz 


13,966 


14,600 


39, 340 


24, 740 


6 


212,800 


Yavapai 


36,837 


38, 200 


74,960 


36,760 


15 


739, 700 


Yuma 


60, 827 


67,000 


158, 115 


91,115— 


4 


30, 100 


TOTAL 


1,773,428 


1,925,000 


4,431, 383 


2, 506, 383 


182 


3,503, 700 



ISource, Arizona Trade Off Model, FCRC. 

^Includes only those subdivisions over 640 acres which are defined within the text. 

3 An average family size of 4. 04 persons (as determined by the 1970 Census) was applied to known lot 
counts; where lot counts were not known estimates were made from published literature or by local 

planning officials. 



'7?r I, (r Jr> 



assumed that one family would occupy one lot. An average family size of 
^4.04 persons was applied to the lot counts or estimates. This was done 
to determine an estimated population capacity for each subdivision. 

The population capacity for the 182 subdivisions included in the 
study was computed to be 3, 503, 700 persons. This is 997, 700 more 
people than are expected to be added to Arizona's current population by 
the year 2000. If it can be assumed for a moment that there will be no 
further growth of Arizona's cities and towns and that the 182 subdivisions 
will be fully occupied by the year 2000, it becomes apparent that more 
land is being subdivided than will be needed to accommodate new popula- 
tion by the year 2000. 

It must be emphasized that the 997, 700 excess subdivision popula- 
tion capacity estimate is a conservative figure for it assumes there 
will be no further growth of the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. 
As has been mentioned above, these areas are expected to increase by a 
combined total of 2, 000, 000 people by the year 2000. An estimate of the 
population capacity of the urban areas will be prepared by the Planning 
Division. . 

Addition a l Framework and Assump ti o n s 

The preliminary survey was designed to reveal the magnitude of 

remote subdividing activity. Because of its very preliminary nature, it 

was necessary to make a number of assumptions that need examination. 

First, it was assumed that all lands approved for subdivision will actually be 

subdivided. In addition, it was assumed the subdivisions could eventually be 

287 



supplied with necessary support facilities and resources (such as water). 
If, however, these assumptions are valid as many subdividers advertise, 
disturbing questions are raised regarding the trends in use of sub- 
divided lands and the impact on taxpayers for providing services to these 
lands. 

More data are needed on the specifics of the subdividing activity. 
The assumptions and data need to be placed in a framework with studies 
of growth potentials for the incorporated areas, second home develop- 
ments, and a survey of the uses subdivided land buyers intend to make 
of their property. 

Preliminary Conclusions 

This summary has been prepared to document the extent of one 
type of land use activity, remote subdividing. The extent of environmen- 
tal damage that may result from subdividing has not been measured 
objectively, although the preliminary survey did find evidence of environ- 
mental damage. It cannot be concluded that all subdividing should cease. 
It is apparent, however, that the scale of remote subdividing activity is 
large enough to warrant serious consideration by legislators, the State 
executive agencies and county supervisors and planners. If this consid- 
eration reveals threats to human health and safety, endangerment of 
natural processes, or extensive threats to important plant and animal 



^w 



288 



i^^Bffi^mnraB 



communities, then it is the responsibility of state officials to take action 
to prevent desecration of the quality of life that Arizonans enjoy. 

The preliminary conclusions of the study can be stated as follows: 

1. More land is now subdivided in the non-urban areas of Arizona than 
can be developed in the forseeable future. 

2. Under present circumstances even more remote land is likely to be 
subdivided. 

3. Most of the land in the remote subdivisions is sold without the 

improvements and facilities necessary for construction of residences. 

1 

4. Many discrepancies exist between promises and performance by the 
subdividers. 

5. The lack of support facilities creates serious problems for the people 
who actually do construct homes in the subdivisions. 

6. In many areas damage is done by the subdivisions to. the natural 
environment. 

7. A current lack of data and information prohibits the complete 
assessment of the total impact of remote subdivisions on the environ- 
ment of Arizona. 

Recommendations 

1. The state should further address itself to the issue of the effect of 
large scale subdivisions on the development of Arizona and the quality 
of its environment. ' 

2. The state's role should be defined within a comprehensive statewide 
land use planning process. 

3. The statewide land use planning process should be designed to involve 
relevant state agencies, units of local government, federal agencies, 
and the public. 



289 



iw.LM.iirtMitehMi-tfVicn.-.i-iiw,....,.. 



Appendix H 
the prescott institutions Archeo logical Investigation 

Prescott, Arizona 86301 b PresCOtt College 
602-445-3254 J e 



W 



September 11, 1972 



Mr. Barry Gushing 
Resources Division 
Bureau of Land Management 
Phoenix, Arizona 



DJBUIEII'W 



SEP 14 1972 







PRESCOTT COLLEGE 



archaeological survey 



Dear Mr. Gushing: 

Enclosed please find the Preliminary Report of the archaeological 
reconnaissance requested by the Arizona Ranch and Metals Company. 
The company officials were extremely cooperative, giving their 
time freely. They conducted the survey party on a tour of the 
area indicating landmarks and section corners and generally 
familiarizing the party with the project area. Without their 
kind cooperation and assistance the project would have been 
more difficult and costly. 

I have followed the Guidelines for the Preparation of Statements 
of Environmental Impact on Archaeological Resources prepared 
by the Arizona Archaeological Center of the National Park 
Service. 



Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions per- 
taining to tne reconnaissance or report. 



Sincerely^ 



cc: Frank Brophy, Jr. 
Walter Smith 
Arizona State Museum 
Douglas H. Scoville 



A.Uu-f \ r ur\tj 
-PaarVV. Long, Jr. 





290 



I'l I'lllilllllWIWiWI'lllHMIllWIIIWIIlllllllllllllWllllllllllMIHI 



,^,«,*mmHmtmM%mmm 



If j . r Y:^J«|ffe^ 





PRESCOTT COLLEGE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF 
ARIZONA RANCH AND METALS CO. EXCHANGE LANDS 

A Preliminary Report 

At the request of Frank C. Brophy, Jr., Attorney for the Arizona 
Ranch and Metals Company (ARMCO), the Prescott College Archaeological 
Survey undertook an archaeological reconnaissance of 8 1/2 sections 
of federal land in Mohave and Yuma Counties, Arizona. The aforementioned 
land is soon to be released from Bureau of Land Management control. 
The area under evaluation is located primarily in Township 11 North, 
Range 16 West, north of the Bill Williams River, Yuma County, Arizona. 
Two 40 acre parcels, Township 11 North, Range 17 West, NE 1/4 of NE 
1/4 of Section 34 and SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, also are 
included in the study area. The survey was under the administrative 
direction of Dr. George J. Gumerman, Director, Archaeological Survey, 
Prescott College, Arizona, The actual field reconnaissance was con- 
ducted by Paul V. Long, Jr. with the able assistance of Peter Sherman, 
both of Prescott College. 

The project was started on August 8, 1972 and concluded on August 
22. The entire survey was conducted on foot, except for the use of 
a four-wheel drive vehicle to gain access to survey areas not readily 
accessible from existing roads. A zig zag pattern was used to traverse 
the larger alluvial terraces while the smaller areas were crisscrossed 
from end to end. Survey collections were made from the entire area. 
Where definable prehistoric habitations or workshops were located, 



292 



■2- 



material cultural items were left so as to Insure systematic collection 
when the time came. 

The success of the project was aided by the splendid cooperation 
of Walter Smith, assistant to the President of ARMCO who took time from 
his busy schedule to conduct us on a tour of the area under consideration, 
showing us land marks and section corners which helped us in our efforts, 
Without his invaluable assistance the time and cost of the reconnaissance 
would have been considerably more. 

A total of six prehistoric sites were located during the survey. 
Two are sleeping circle sites, two are lithic workshops, and two are 
stone alignments. 

Conclusion 

Inasmuch as the land on which these prehistoric sites are found 
will be altered to some extent by construction, farming activities 
and constant use by recreational ly oriented inhabitants, it is of 
utmost importance that further investigations be made. Secondly, 
the particular cultural features located by the survey team have 
never been reported for the Bill Williams area although Rogers 
(1966:24) indicates the possible existence of the San Dieguito Complex 
in this area. The nearest recorded sites are along Signal Wash in 
McCracken Basin and in Rawhide Canyon (Rogers 1966:173,176) both some 
distance northeast of the area under discussion. Of the four sites 
listed by Rogers (1966:173) and the two by Davis, Brott and Weide 
(1969:67-69) none records architecture or rock alignments. These 
facts suggest the need for the further investigations herein suggested. 



293 



-3- 



Recommendations and estimated time for additional work follows by site. 

Ariz. M:9;l (PC) 

This site is located 3/4 of a mile north of the end of a ranch road 
which parallels the north side of the Bill Williams River in Mohave 
County, Arizona. Three sleeping circles lie along the edge of a boulder- 
strewn alluvial terrace extending from the eastern base of Black Mesa, 
on the east side of a large open mesa and sandy-bottomed rincon. 

The terrace rises 10 meters above the bottom of the rincon and is 
being slowly eroded by a small arroyo at its base. The site is within 
a 40 acre parcel which eventually will be used for agricultural plots. 
Life Zone : Lower Sonoran. 

Site Components and Artifacts : This site encompassed an area 100 
meters long and 20 meters wide along the edge of an alluvial terrace 
and consisted of three and possibly five sleeping circles which are 
indicative of the San Dieguito Complex. A ursory surface inspection 
yielded no artifactual material. 

Conclusion : It is doubtful that excavation of this site would yield 
anything more conclusive than the surface remains already shown. How- 
ever, in order to increase the data on these human remains it is advisable 
to measure all circles, map them in relation to each other, and determine 
the relationship between the building boulders and the desert pavement 
on which they rest. It should also be noted as mentioned above that there 
is a lack of data pertaining to such sleeping circles in reports dealing 
with this part of Arizona. In this regard, they are unique to the area. 



294 



•4- 



*"' Ariz. M:9:2 (PC) 

This site is located on a high point of land in the NE 1/4 of 
Section 23, 2 1/4 miles north of a ranch road paralleling the Bill 
Williams River. The high point appears as 995 on the USGS Quad. The 
site is easily accessible by four-wheel drive vehicle via a large arroyo 
approximately 1/4 mile west of the site. The area surrounding the site 
consists of deeply dissected alluvial terrace with a sparse covering of 
creosote brush. The larger arroyos are flat, broad plains with moderately 
heavy vegetation. 

Life Zone : Lower Sonoran. 

Site Components and Artifacts : This small lithic area is 15 meters 
in diamter. Depth is minimal. Bedrock outcrops all over the site. 
Scattered over the surface are numerous pieces of siliceous rock some of 
human manufacture and even more created by natural circumstances. Several 
stone tools were collected. 

Conclusions : Although a few lithic artifacts were recovered from 
the surface, excavation is not feasible for the reason mentioned above. 

Ariz. H:9:3 (PC) 

Ariz. M:9:3 is located 3 miles north of the Bill Williams River in 
the SE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section k5, TUN, R16W, on top of a small 
hill marked 985 on Castaneda Hills Quad. A powerline road passes the 
area about 1 1/4 miles north. 

Life Zone : Lower Sonoran. Creosote ( Larrea tridentata ) and cholla 
( Opuntia bigelovii ) dominate the plant community on the site while in 
arroyos, which bracket the site, ironwood ( Olneya tesota ) and Palo Verde 

295 



-5- 



( Cercidium microphyllum ) are the most obvious. 

Site Components and Artifacts : The site is approximately 20 meters 
in diameter with lithic debris scattered over the surface. The recog- 
nizable stone tools, choppers and flake knives, were left in situ. The 
surficial material is siliceous stone and malapai. 

Conclusions : Even though there is only a meager collection of stone 
tools observed on the site, in total numbers, there are more here than 
any other site recorded by the survey. It is for this reason, that the 
tools were left on the site so that they could be collected systematically 
at a later date. 

2. M:9:4 (PC) 



The second sleeping circle site is situated on a broad flat between 
two small arroyos in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, TUN, R16W. 
The nearest access road is 1/4 of a mile north. A long broken north- 
south ridge is situated about 1/8 of a mile east from Ariz. M:9:4. The 
Planet Ranch-Yucca Road is 1/2 a mile east of the site. 

Life Zone : Lower Sonoran. 

Site Component and Artifacts : Two adjacent sleeping circles are 
the only manifestations of human habitation at this site. The circles 
are constructed of large boulders which are not as heavily patinated as 
those at Ariz. M:9:l. The circles are 4 and 3 meters in diameter and lie 1 
meter apart. In the northern most circle are three smaller boulders placed 
in the center of the circle. They appear as though they were either hearth 
stones cr a vessel support. 

Several of the boulders are barely observable above the surface, others 



296 



^.ismBBBni 



-6- 



extend more than three-quarters above ground level, while the remaining 
rest on the surface. A small amount of lithic waste was observed. 

Conclusions : The area in which this site is situated will, if plans 
proceed for the area, be the downtown section of the development. Although 
tools are lacking, 100 meters north of the site a chopper was recovered. 
Previous experience with the excavation of sleeping circles (Hayden, 
personal communication) suggests that little would be gained by excavation 
of these circles; however, it is recommended that the circles be measured, 
mapped, and photographed. Sleeping circles are one of the manifestations 
of the San Dieguito Complex. 

Ariz. M:9;5 (PC) 

A foot trail passes next to this site which is located in the SE 
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 23, R16W, TUN. A ranch road leading to 
the rincon is 1 1/2 miles south of the site. The terrace on which the 
rock alignment is situated is bounded on the west by a small arroyo and 
on the east by rolling alluvial terraces. 

Life Zone : Lower So no ran. 

Site Components and Artifacts : Ariz. M:9:5 consists of two rows 
of boulders 5 meters long adjacent to a trail. A quartz crystal hammerstone 
was collected a short distance north of this rock alignment. No other 
evidence of human activity was recorded in the vicinity of the site. 

Conclusions : Excavation is not recommended because of the lack of 
artifactual material and the relatively sterile nature of the area around 
the alignment, however, the alignment should be mapped, measured and 
photographed. The relationship between the boulders and the surface 



297 



should be checked. Similar alignments are found throughout the southern 
California desert region and are assigned to the San Dieguito Complex. 

Ariz. M:13:l (PC) 

The second rock alignment recorded by the survey is located on a 
small erosional remnant in a large arroyo 1 1/4 miles east of Planet Ranch 
and on the south side of the Bill Williams River in the NW 1/4 of the NW 

1/4 of Section 3, R16W, T10N. 

r 

Life Zone: Lower Sonoran. \ 

Site Components and Artifacts : This site is composed of two parallel 
rows of boulders 30 meters long. The southern most 20 meters is disturbed 
and out of line but not so much so that it is unidentifiable. The interior 
width is 90 cm. and the exterior width is 115 cm. Artifactual material 
is lacking. Sites similar to this one have been categorized as representative 
of the San Dieguito Complex. 

Conclusions : Other than checking the calcification of the boulders 
that make up the alignment, mapping, measuring and photographing, no 
further investigations or excavations are recommended for this site. 

Vegetation List 

The area under consideration lies in the Lower Sonoran life zone. 

The predominant plant in this area of the Sonoran Desert is the creosote 

( Larrea tridentata ). The following list of plants are the most abundant 

types and easiest to recognize. 

palo verde ( Cercidium microphyllum ) 
creosote ( Larrea tridentata ) 
i ronwood ( Olnyea tesota ) ' 
sajuaro ( Cercus giganteus ) 



298 



Bwaymmwft": 



-8- 



■ 

& I 

V ! 



i ! 
*■■' 

1 



blsnaga ( Echinocactus acanthodes ) 
.cholla (Opuntia bigelovii ) 
beavertail (0. basilaris ) 

The vegetation in the west portion of the project area is denser 
with palo verde and cholla being the more dominant. 

Evaluation of Significance 
The historical significance of four of the sites (Ariz. M:9:l, 
M:9:4, M:9:5, and M:13:l) recorded during the survey is related to the 
fact that sites such as these (rock alignments and sleeping circles) 
are for the first time recorded in this particular area. I would be 
well to mention also that this area never has been the subject of an inten- 
sive archaeological reconnaissance and therefore such features could pro- 
bably be located. At the present time, however, they are unique for 
v ~ this area. Throughout San Bernardino County, California and Yuma County, 
Arizona such manifestations of the San Dieguito Complex have been recorded 
so that the presence of these features in the project area is not a totally 
new occurrence in the surrounding regions. 

Let it be stated here, that when one talks of scientific significance 
it must be done in degrees, with the knowledge that much of the Southwest 
is still archaeologically virgin territory. With this in mind, the project 
area under consideration must be considered of moderate importance. The 
general paucity of sites, the extremely scattered nature of the artifa ctual 
evidence, and the lack of ceramic material that might indicate an extended 
use of this area through time; all of these, when analyzed, seem to support 
the foregoing statement. It is not as though sleeping circles and rock 
alignments were confined only to the project area and were lacking in all 



299 



-9- 



other adjacent areas, since throughout Yuma County and into Maricopa County 
evidence for the San Dieguito Complex has been reported (Rogers 1966: 
173-177). The desert areas of California and the southern coastal regions, 
particularly from Oceanside southward to San Diego, abound with evidence 
of the San Dieguito Complex (Rogers 1966). 

Variety is another consideration which is quite interesting inasmuch*- 
as there are four and perhaps five types of remains assignable to human 
endeavor: trails (?), circles with and without boulder rimmed perimeters, 
parallel rock alignments, and lithic workshops. 

In conclusion, while it is possible that these sites may add some- 
thing new to the knowledge of the San Dieguito Complex, it is not probable, 
since more than 8,000 sleeping circles were recorded by Rogers (1966:77) 
until his census attempts were discontinued in 1943. 

The measurement, photographic recording, and accurate location of 
these features should give adequate information to the archaeologist 
for any future research. 

The Predicted Effect of the Action on Archaeological Resources 
Once the land in question has been cleared for exchange, it will be 
developed into a recreational community. Much of the land will be 
prepared for building sites, some will be developed into farming plots 
while other segments will be used for recreational purposes such as horseback 
riding trails, dune buggy areas, some game hunting, and rock hunting. 
Conceivably, the entire area will receive direct and indirect effects. 
The sleeping circles in the "downtown" area will undoubtedly be destroyed 
unless they are incorporated into a proposed park for the area, while the 



300 



■:■:■,.■■ ■■■■■^asamimsm 



-10- 



clrcles in the rincon area will probably have the boulders robbed for 
building stone. In this case, there will be adverse effects on all or 
part of the resources. The recommendations herein made will mitigate some 
of the adverse effects. 

A Recommended Program for Mitigation of Adverse Effects on the Resources 
It 1s certain that the six sites recorded by the survey in the pro- 
ject area will come under adverse effects as a result of the proposed 
action. However, these effects will be mitigated if the following recommen- 
dations are implemented. 

Ariz. M:9:l (PC) 

Three sleeping circles. Check relationship between boulders and 
desert pavement, measure, map, and photography. 

Estimated time: 2 days. 
Ariz. M:9:2 (PC) 

No work is proposed for this site. 
Ariz. M:9:3 (PC) 

Lithic workshop. Establish 2 meter grid over site and collect and 
bag each square separately for analysis. Check relationship between 
desert pavement and tools. Measure variable depths, if any, and collect 
accordingly. 

Estimated time: 2 days. 
Ariz. M:9:4 (PC) 

Two sleeping circles. Check relationship between desert pavement, 
measure, map, and photography. 



301 



-u- 



Estimated time: 1 day. 
Ariz. M:13:l (PC) 

Rock alignment. Check relationship between desert pavement and 
boulders, measure, map, and photography. 

Estimated time: 1 day. 

The above recommendations are made so that all information available 
from the sites may be collected and subsequently added to the growing 
inventory of manifestations of the San Dieguito Complex along the 
eastern frontier of this complex. What little that might be gained could 
serve as the base for future studies of this early lithic tradition. 

Cost Estimate 

Supervisory Archaeologist ($50 per day for 7 days) $ 350 

Assistant Archaeologist ($30 per day for 7 days) 280 

Report Writing ($50 per day for 3 days) 150 

Laboratory Analysis ($25 per day for 7 days) 175 

955 

12% insurance, taxes, etc. ]]4 

Per diem while in field (2) 7 days $10 per day 140 

Field supplies, f il , forms, drafting paper, etc. 

$10 per day for 7 days 70 

Laboratory supplies, photo printing, map drafting 

$10 per day for 7 days 70 

Mileage at 15<t per mile (4-wheel drive vehicle for 

1,000 miles) 150 

1,499 

Indirect administrative expenses 20% of total 400 

$T^99~ 



302 






.*....». vummjinii .'....itt ,wNM 



-12- 



Adverse Unavoidable Effects 
Although archaeological studies are planned which will alleviate 
some of the negative effects of the proposed action, there is always 
unavoidable destruction of archaeological resources. However, those 
resources which will be destroyed are not necessarily that valuable 
to the researcher. They are not the only examples and therefore not 
so unique that their destruction would create a void in the archaeological 
record. 



Alternatives to Proposed Action 
Two alternatives to the proposed action can be made. The first 
has been dealt with and concerns mitigating measures using scientific 
study. The recommendations for this alternative appears above along with 
estimated cost for this action. The second alternative concerns the 
protective management of the two sleeping circles in the "downtown" 
section of the development. It would be feasible to do this and would 
certainly be an addition to the proposed park. 

The Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment 
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity 
The archaeological resources which are to be affected by the proposed 
action are few in number although the variety is great for such a small 
area. Above it has been stated that within the culture province of the 
San Dieguito Complex more than 8,000 sleeping circles and a large number 
of rock alignments have been recorded so that it is doubtful that the 
lose of these will create any hardships on present or future archaeological 
investigations. 

303 



•13- 



Llst of References 

Davis, E. L., C. W. Brott and D. L. Weide 

1969 The Western Lithic Co-Tradition. San Diego Museum Papers 
No. 6. San Diego Museum of Man. wan Diego. 

Pourade, Richard F. (ed.) 

1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West . Union-Tribune Publishing 
Co., San Diego. 



304 



^ « 1 *jfcj>j l a„ 1 afcj«6«^.« _ . .., ^/^i,,,.,;^^^:^^... 



.^.^..-kv^^- 



APP ENDIX I 
SUMMARY OF LAND TRANSACTIONS IN 
TOWNSHIP 11 N., R. 16 W. ,GSRM, 
1967 to date 



1967 - 1968 State of Arizona selected the odd numbered sections in T. 11 N 
R. 16 W. because BLM owned the surface and mineral rights on 
these sections. The State did not select the odd numbered sections 
in this township because the surface rights on these lands had been 
reacquired by BLM from the railroad and the railroad retained the 
mineral rights. After considerable deliberation, we agreed to 
approve these State selections which "recheckerboarded" this 
township because: 

(1) BLM did not need to retain and manage these lands, and 

(2) State selections are a high priority application. 

1962-Present The Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. and BSF&W have been encouraging 
BLM to make a land exchange to acquire the NE^ of Section 29, 
T. 11 N. , R. 17 W. , which is valuable wildlife habitat and 
suitable for addition to the Havasu National Wildlife REfuge. 

This desire to acquire this 160 acres grew into a larger exchange 
proposal by the Arizona Ranch & Metals Company who offered 
additional lands in the Bill Williams River Valley area east 
and west of Planet Ranch in exchange for the odd numbered BLM 
sections in T. UN., R. 16 W. 

Simultaneously, Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. proposed to purchase 
the even numbered State sections in T. 11 N. , R. 16 W. , from the 
State Land Department. 

1972 J 3 Ma y 10 » 1972 » af ter several meetings between Arizona Ranch A 
Metals Co., BLM, and State Land Department representatives, the 
State Land Department filed State Exchange A-6951 for 3,665 acres 
in the northern half of T. 11 N. , R. 16 W. The State has offered 
scattered State sections in Mohave County within areas which BLM 
wants to block out for multiple use management. The State's 
purpose is to obtain lands on the periphery of the proposed 
Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. new town development for future sale ' 
to benefit the State Trust Fund. The Arizona Ranch & Metals Co. 
is precluded by the regulations from filing a private exchange 
application on the remaining public lands in the central and 
southern portions of this township because a private exchange 
application cannot be filed until and unless the public lands 
are classified for exchange. State Exchanges are not precluded 
by the more restrictive regulations jgainst private exchange 
filings. 

4-27-72 BLM published in the Federal Register a "Notice of Proposed Classi- 
fication of Public Lands for Transfer Out of Federal Ownership" 
(copy attached). The "Notice of Classification" has not been 
published and will not be published until the environmental 
statement is completed and a decision is made as to whether or not 
these lands should be classified for disposal by exchange. 

+ + + 

305 



APPENDIX J 



GEORGE E. LEONARD 

CHAIRMAN 

JOHN S. HOOPES 

VICE-CHAIRMAN 

WESLEY E. STEINER 
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

AND 
STATE WATER ENGINEER 




(Arteona plater (Uoiimussimt 

221 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 800 

ipljocntx, ^rizona 85004 

TELEPHONE (901) 2S8-7SSI 



MEMBERS 

PETER BIANCO 
LINTON CLARIDGE 
DAVID R. GIPE 
DOUGLAS J. WALL 
WILLIAM H. WHEELS! 

EXOFFICIO MEMBERS 

ANDREW L. BETTWY 
MARSHALL HUMPHRE 



January 31 , 1 97*+ 



ARIZONA STATE OFFICE 
BU. 1AND MANAGEMENT 



FEB1 74 



so 



ASSOC, io 






RESOURCES 






MOMTSE* 






i , «T»»i 


■wo- 


rn mc 



Mr. Joseph T. Fallini 
State Director 
Bureau of Land Management 
3022 Federal Building 
Phoenix, Arizona 85025 

Dear Mr. Fallini: 

On December 13, 1973 Reinard Okeson and Robert 
Steele of the Bureau, and Philip Briggs of the Commission 
met, at our respective requests, to discuss the water 
supply aspects of the proposed Planet Ranch land exchange. 
Messrs Okeson and Steele discussed the Bureau's work to 
date, the study upon which it is based, and requested the 
Commission's counsel during the preparation of the final 
environmental impact statement. 

The adequacy of the water supply for the pro- 
posed subdivision, and the impact of these uses on the down- 
stream riparian areas had been questioned during the review 
of the draft EIS. The Bureau desires to respond to these 
questions to the extent possible in the final EIS, but is 
constrained to working with available information. The 
applicant for the exchange provided a copy of a study that 
had been conducted for them in 1962 by Samuel F. Turner and 
Associates; this study plus stream gage records on the Bill 
Williams River in the vicinity of the Ranch form the basis 
for their evaluation. 



Mr. Briggs noted that the Commission had 



itself 
commented on these aspects of the draft, and would similarly 
review the final statement. Additionally the Commission 
is required to review the adequacy of water supplies for 
subdivisions in Arizona under ARS ^5-51 3 and thus would 
eventually become directly involved in assessing the avail- 
ability of water supply. The Commission's review under 
ARS l +5-51 3 is more intensive than that under preparation for 




306 



Mr. Joseph T. Fallini 

Page 2 

January 31 , 1 97*+ 

the final EIS, however, Mr. Briggs did agree to assist 
the Bureau in a review of the available information. The 
following are the results of that review. 

The Planet Valley of the Bill Williams River is 
relatively small, and forms only a part of the proposed 
exchange. The aquifers in the Valley are, however, the 
proposed source of water for the entire tract. The Valley 
is a widening of the canyon of the Bill Williams. Castaneda 
Wash joins the river from the north in the Valley, as do 
smaller washes from the south. The Valley's aquifers are 
the shallow, relatively young alluvium, deposited in recent 
times by the river, and an underlying older conglomerate. 
The aquifers are recharged principally by the river and dis- 
charge naturally through evapo transpiration, drainage as 
underflow and surface flow at the downstream end, and 
artificially by pumpage. The volume of water in storage, 
the natural discharge and the amount and variation of re- 
charge are all important aspects in the determination of 
adequacy of supply. 

The Turner report was prepared to determine the 
water supply available in Planet Valley for a proposed ex- 
pansion of irrigation on the Ranch, and it of course does 
not include the impact of Alamo Dam on the river regimen. 
Probably due to its intended purpose, the report treats 
lightly some of the key elements of an adequacy study for 
a subdivision. Alfalfa can stand a few water short years, 
a community can not. The report's limited treatment of the 
volume of water in storage in the aquifers and of the tran- 
sient nature of the groundwater in storage, and failure to 
consider the dynamic temporal aspects of the surface water — 
groundwater interrelationships render it unsatisfactory for 
the problem at hand. Combined with the probable signifi- 
cant impacts of Alamo Dam on the streamflow regimen in the 
Valley during dry years it is the Commission's judgement 
that the available information does not demonstrate ade- 
quacy of supply for the subdivision, nor can it be used to 
do so. Conversely, analysis of the report does not indicate 
the supply is inadequate. 

Should the Bureau wish to pursue this matter 
further we would suggest additional data collection to 
supplement the Turner report, and updating of the stream- 
flow analysis to include the modifications required by the 
construction of Alamo Dam. 



307 



w^WIW^W WM^MW^raiB^BffBMffllMraSfflMf^MM 



Mr. Joseph T. Fallini 
January 31,, 1 97^ 



Requisite data would include: 

1 . Survey of phreatophytes currently growing in 
the Valley and in the reach to Alamo. 

2. Determination of surface water — groundwater in- 
terrelationships. 

3. Water levels in the Valley. 

h. Aerial and vertical extent of the aquifers. 

5. Well tests to better determine aquifer 
characteristics and their distribution. 



Once these data are gathered, a classical surface 
water supply analysis should be conducted, using the above 
data to include conjunctive operation of the surface and 
groundwater supplies. There is definitely a water supply 
available in the Valley. The question is how much, and 
how to develop it.. The above program, if satisfactorily 
conducted, will provide those answers. 

Please contact us if we can be of any further 
assistance. 

Sincerely, 




fesley/6. Steiner 
ExecuWve Director 



308 



APPENDIX K 



ENGINEERING BULLETIN NO. 12 

THE SEPTIC TANK 

A METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL FOR 

PRIVATE OR PUBLIC BUILDINGS 



ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 



ills 



a m I II 

IsM IX 

9 1 \ 1 1 



ENT 




309 



^^m^HHBRIIKG&Tr ' J. ■ \. ... 



hlMMBilHWn 



PART I - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 
A„ APPROVAL REQUIRED 

1. Design and Installation - Each septic tank disposal system 
shall be designed and installed so as to meet the approval 
of the local county health department. 

2. Septic Tanks Excluded - Septic tanks will not be approved 
nor shall septic tanks be installed under the following 
condi tions ; 

a. Where connection to a public sewerage system is practicable, 

b. Where soil conditions or topography is such that a septic 
tank system cannot be expected to work satisfactorily. 

c c Where installation of such a system would constitute a 
potential hazard to a ground water supply. 

d„ In a planned community or large subdivision where a con- 
siderable number of buildings will be served. In such 
cases, when connection to an existing system is not prac- 
ticable, a community sewerage system will be required, 
along with sewage treatment facilities, satisfactory to 
the Arizona State Department of Health,, 

B. SUITABILITY OF SOIL 

1. General - Before designing any septic tank system it must 
first be determined that soil conditions are suitable for 
absorption of the septic tank effluent„ The soil shall 
have an acceptable percolation rate without interference 
from ground water or Impervious strata below the level of 
the absorption system. 

2 t Site Conditions - Unless the conditions noted below are met, 
the site selected is considered unsuitable for subsurface 
disposal systems and the construction of residences or other 
structures requiring waste disposal facilities will be pro- 
hibited unless an alternate method of sewage disposal satis- 
factory to the department of health is provided* 

a. The percolation time shall be within the limits specified 
in Tabl e I below 

b. Rock formations or other Impervious strata and the maxi- 
mum elevation of the ground water table shall be at a 
depth greater than h feet below the bottom of each tile 
trench or seepage pit. 

3. 3orings - To determine subsurface formations in a given area 
it may be necessary that subsurface explorations be made, 
although useful information can sometimes be obtained from 
road cuts, stream beds and building excavations. The depth 
to which borings shall be taken Is dependent upon the type 

- I - 

310 



of leaching system proposed. For subsurface tile fields, the 
borings shall be made to a depth of 10 ft. and for seepage pits 
to a depth of at least 30 ft„ Since subsoil strata may vary 
widely within short distances, additional borings at the site 
of the proposed system may be necessary at the discretion of the 
local health department. 

4. Percolation Tests - When subsurface conditions are satisfactory 
and the soil appears suitable, percolation tests are required 
at points and elevations typical of the area In accordance with 
recommendations of the county health department. All tests 
shall be conducted at the owner's expense, by or under the 
' supervision of an engineer, sanitarian, or other qualified person, 
and results shall be submitted to the local health department for 
review and decision as to the suitability of the area for septic 
tank disposal systems. It Is extremely important that only 
qualified personnel conduct percolation tests as the results 
obtained will determine not only the acceptability of the site 
but also the design of the subsurface disposal system. 

TABLE I 

ABSORPTION AREA REQUIREMENTS AND 
ALLOWABLE RATE OF APPLICATION BASED ON PERCOLATION TESTS 



Percolation Rate Required Absorption Area Maximum Rate of Application 

(Time in minutes required In sq.ft. per bedroom gallons per sq.ft, par day 

for water to fall 1 inch) (see 1, 2, 3 below) (see 2, 3, 6, 7 below) 

1 or less 70 5.0 

2 85 3.5 

3 100 2.9 
k 115 2 «5 
5 125 2.2 

10 165 I* 6 

15 190 1.3 

30 (k below) 250 0.9 

i+5 300 0.8 

60 (5 below) 350 0.6 



low 



1. Sufficient area shall be provided for at least 2 bedrooms. 

2. Absorption area for trenches is figured as trench-bottom area. 
3„ Absorption area for seepage pits is effective side-wall area bel 

the inlet. 
k„ Over 30 minutes unsuitable for seepage pits, 

5. Over 60 minutes unsuitable for leaching systems. 

6. Quantity of sewage to be determined from Table III. 

7. No provisions made for automatic washing machines or garbage grinders, 
for buildings where these appliances are installed, the calculated 
leaching area should be Increased 20% for automatic washing machines, 
40% for garbage grinders, and 60% for both. 



- 2 - 
311 



Bureau of Land Management 

Library 
Denver Sarvice Centar